Simplifying approach to Node Classification in Graph Neural Networks
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have become one of the indispensable tools to learn from graph-structured data, and their usefulness has been shown in wide variety of tasks. In recent years, there have been tremendous improvements in architecture design, resulting in better performance on various prediction tasks. In general, these neural architectures combine node feature aggregation and feature transformation using learnable weight matrix in the same layer. This makes it challenging to analyze the importance of node features aggregated from various hops and the expressiveness of the neural network layers. As different graph datasets show varying levels of homophily and heterophily in features and class label distribution, it becomes essential to understand which features are important for the prediction tasks without any prior information. In this work, we decouple the node feature aggregation step and depth of graph neural network, and empirically analyze how different aggregated features play a role in prediction performance. We show that not all features generated via aggregation steps are useful, and often using these less informative features can be detrimental to the performance of the GNN model. Through our experiments, we show that learning certain subsets of these features can lead to better performance on wide variety of datasets. Based on our observations, we introduce several key design strategies for graph neural networks. More specifically, we propose to use softmax as a regularizer and "soft-selector" of features aggregated from neighbors at different hop distances; and L2-Normalization over GNN layers. Combining these techniques, we present a simple and shallow model, Feature Selection Graph Neural Network (FSGNN), and show empirically that the proposed model achieves comparable or even higher accuracy than state-of-the-art GNN models in nine benchmark datasets for the node classification task, with remarkable improvements up to 51.1\
Benchmark Results
Tested on 7 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 | |
| 67 | SoTA | 0.8849 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 | |
| 60 | SoTA | 0.9030 | This paper |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 |
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9672
±0.0147 | |
| 2 | DoG | 0.9660
±0.0210 | |
| 3 | GPF-plus | 0.9583
±0.0419 | |
| 34 | MLP | 0.9230
±0.0070 | |
| 53 | GraphSAGE | 0.9000
±0.0365 | |
| 76 | FSGNN (Sub_feature) SUM | 0.8891 | This paper |
| 80 | FSGNN (Sub_feature) CAT | 0.8864 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9541
±0.0272 | |
| 2 | ACM-GCN | 0.9480
±0.0380 | |
| 3 | RF-GCN | 0.9429 | |
| 22 | GPRGNN | 0.8189
±0.0617 | prev best: Bag of Tricks for Training Deeper Graph Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Benchmark Study (2021) best today: Simplified PCNet with Robustness (2024) |
| 24 | MLP | 0.9136
±0.0070 | |
| 35 | GCNII | 0.8918
±0.0396 best reported | best at pub: Label-Wise Graph Convolutional Network for Heterophilic Graphs (2021) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) |
| 47 | FSGNN (Homo/Hetero) 3-hop | 0.8730
±0.0593 | This paper |
| 48 | FSGNN (Homo/Hetero) 8-hop | 0.8730
±0.0453 | This paper |
| 56 | FSGNN | 0.8675 | This paper |
| 138 | SAGE | 0.8269 | |
| 153 | H2GCN-1 | 0.8216
±0.0480 | This paper |
| 157 | GraphSAGE | 0.8196
±0.0739 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 158 | GAT | 0.8190
±0.0540 best reported | best at pub: NCGNN: Node-Level Capsule Graph Neural Network for Semisupervised Classification (2020) best today: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) |
| 160 | WRGAT | 0.8162
±0.0390 | This paper |
| 170 | GCN | 0.8082
±0.0360 best reported | best at pub: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) best today: Bayesian Neighborhood Adaptation for Graph Neural Networks (TMLR 2025) |
| 183 | MixHop | 0.7950
±0.0630 best reported | best at pub: Label-Wise Graph Convolutional Network for Heterophilic Graphs (2021) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 239 | Cheby+JK | 0.7459
±0.0787 | This paper |
| 342 | Geom-GCN | 0.6412 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: Steering Graph Neural Networks with Pinning Control (2023) |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DiGGR | 0.4535
±0.0353 | |
| 2 | TRIGON | 0.4402
±0.0028 | |
| 3 | DoG | 0.4320
±0.0120 | |
| 42 | MLP | 0.4026
±0.0108 | |
| 52 | GPRGNN | 0.3604
±0.0096 | prev best: Bag of Tricks for Training Deeper Graph Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Benchmark Study (2021) best today: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) |
| 68 | GraphSAGE | 0.3899
±0.0085 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: A Quasi-Wasserstein Loss for Learning Graph Neural Networks (WWW 2023) |
| 75 | WRGAT | 0.3860
±0.0110 best reported | |
| 87 | Geom-GCN | 0.3810 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 135 | GCN | 0.3690 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 160 | SoTA | 0.3653 | This paper |
| 162 | MixHop | 0.3648
±0.0120 best reported | best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) best today: Towards Deep Attention in Graph Neural Networks: Problems and Remedies (ICML 2023) |
| 182 | GAT | 0.3605
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) best today: Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling (NeurIPS 2022) |
| 190 | H2GCN-1 | 0.3594
±0.0130 best reported | best at pub: NCGNN: Node-Level Capsule Graph Neural Network for Semisupervised Classification (2020) best today: Steering Graph Neural Networks with Pinning Control (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 199 | SUM (Sub_feature) | 0.3567 | This paper |
| 202 | CAT (Sub_feature) | 0.3563 | This paper |
| 205 | FSGNN (Homo/Hetero) 8-hop | 0.3562
±0.0087 | This paper |
| 222 | FSGNN (Homo/Hetero) 3-hop | 0.3538
±0.0081 | This paper |
| 223 | X | 0.3532 | This paper |
| 227 | Cheby+JK | 0.3514
±0.0137 | This paper |
| 266 | GIN | 0.3410
±0.0030 | |
| 368 | (A+I)X | 0.2922 | This paper |
| 398 | (A+I)^2X | 0.2795 | This paper |
| 417 | (A+I)^3X | 0.2643 | This paper |
| 425 | AX | 0.2547 | This paper |
| 429 | A^2X | 0.2538 | This paper |
| 432 | A^3X | 0.2527 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer) | 0.8693 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.8586
±0.0180 | |
| 3 | GAT | 0.8560 best reported | best at pub: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) best today: The Heterophilic Snowflake Hypothesis: Training and Empowering GNNs for Heterophilic Graphs (KDD 2024) |
| 21 | FSGNN (Homo/Hetero) 3-hop | 0.7893
±0.0103 | This paper |
| 33 | FSGNN (Homo/Hetero) 8-hop | 0.7394
±0.0202 | This paper |
| 52 | GCN | 0.7033 best reported | best at pub: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 72 | GPRGNN | 0.6748
±0.0040 best reported | best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 80 | SoTA | 0.6647 | This paper |
| 91 | WRGAT | 0.6524
±0.0087 | This paper |
| 103 | GCNII | 0.6386
±0.0304 best reported | best today: Scalable Graph Compressed Convolutions (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 104 | Cheby+JK | 0.6379
±0.0227 | This paper |
| 108 | SAGE | 0.6340
±0.0300 | |
| 115 | GraphSAGE | 0.6215
±0.0042 best reported | best today: Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling (NeurIPS 2022) |
| 124 | Geom-GCN | 0.6090 | This paper |
| 129 | MixHop | 0.6050
±0.0253 | This paper |
| 156 | H2GCN-1 | 0.5711
±0.0158 | This paper |
| 169 | MLP | 0.5429 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IBG-NN | 0.7763
±0.0179 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.7747
±0.0128 | |
| 3 | DHGNN | 0.7684
±0.0161 | |
| 11 | FSGNN | 0.7416 | This paper |
| 46 | GCN | 0.6067 best reported | best at pub: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 67 | GAT | 0.5630
±0.0220 best reported | best at pub: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) best today: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) |
| 76 | GPRGNN | 0.5435
±0.0087 best reported | best today: Directed Homophily-Aware Graph Neural Network (2025) |
| 95 | SoTA | 0.4903 | This paper |
| 96 | WRGAT | 0.4885
±0.0078 | This paper |
| 119 | Cheby+JK | 0.4503
±0.0173 | This paper |
| 120 | SAGE | 0.4460
±0.0130 | |
| 127 | MixHop | 0.4380
±0.0148 | This paper |
| 128 | GraphSAGE | 0.4378
±0.0190 best reported | best today: UniGAP: A Universal and Adaptive Graph Upsampling Approach to Mitigate Over-Smoothing in Node Classification Tasks (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 172 | MLP | 0.3930
±0.0079 | |
| 179 | Geom-GCN | 0.3814 | prev best: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) |
| 203 | H2GCN-1 | 0.3642
±0.0189 | This paper |
