Block Modeling-Guided Graph Convolutional Neural Networks
Abstract
Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) has shown remarkable potential of exploring graph representation. However, the GCN aggregating mechanism fails to generalize to networks with heterophily where most nodes have neighbors from different classes, which commonly exists in real-world networks. In order to make the propagation and aggregation mechanism of GCN suitable for both homophily and heterophily (or even their mixture), we introduce block modeling into the framework of GCN so that it can realize “block-guided classified aggregation”, and automatically learn the corresponding aggregation rules for neighbors of different classes. By incorporating block modeling into the aggregation process, GCN is able to aggregate information from homophilic and heterophilic neighbors discriminately according to their homophily degree. We compared our algorithm with state-of-art methods which deal with the heterophily problem. Empirical results demonstrate the superiority of our new approach over existing methods in heterophilic datasets while maintaining a competitive performance in homophilic datasets.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 6 datasets
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 best reported | best at pub: SplineCNN: Fast Geometric Deep Learning with Continuous B-Spline Kernels (2017) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 51 | H2GCN | 0.8882
±0.0011 best reported | best today: Adaptive Tokenization: On the Hop-Overpriority Problem in Tokenized Graph Learning Models (2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 100 | BM-GCN | 0.8799
±0.0129 | This paper |
| 155 | CPGNN-Cheby | 0.8682
±0.0111 | This paper |
| 162 | GPR-GNN | 0.8670
±0.0103 | This paper |
| 219 | CPGNN-MLP | 0.8523
±0.0171 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7414
±0.0140 | prev best: Adversarial Graph Disentanglement with Component-specific Aggregation (2021) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 111 | H2GCN | 0.7595
±0.0218 | |
| 129 | BM-GCN | 0.7613
±0.0192 | This paper |
| 162 | CPGNN-Cheby | 0.7542
±0.0185 | This paper |
| 176 | GPR-GNN | 0.7512
±0.0198 | This paper |
| 215 | CPGNN-MLP | 0.7429
±0.0241 | This paper |
| 350 | MLP | 0.6958
±0.0231 | prev best: Adversarial Graph Disentanglement with Component-specific Aggregation (2021) |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 16 | H2GCN | 0.9361
±0.0013 best reported | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 61 | BM-GCN | 0.9025
±0.0075 | This paper |
| 104 | CPGNN-Cheby | 0.8908
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 116 | SAGE | 0.8881
±0.0015 | |
| 191 | GPR-GNN | 0.8738
±0.0063 | This paper |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8638
±0.0061 | prev best: Adversarial Graph Disentanglement with Component-specific Aggregation (2021) |
| 212 | CPGNN-MLP | 0.8683
±0.0078 | This paper |
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 | |
| 30 | GPR-GNN | 0.8459
±0.0437 | prev best: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) best today: Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Chebyshev Approximation, Revisited (NeurIPS 2022) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 34 | MLP | 0.9230
±0.0070 best reported | best at pub: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) best today: Design your own universe: a physics-informed agnostic method for enhancing graph neural networks (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 40 | H2GCN | 0.9189
±0.0393 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 53 | GraphSAGE | 0.9000
±0.0365 | |
| 144 | BM-GCN | 0.8513
±0.0464 | prev best: Label-Wise Graph Convolutional Network for Heterophilic Graphs (2021) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 191 | CPGNN-MLP | 0.8262
±0.0688 best reported | best at pub: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 257 | GCN | 0.7933
±0.0447 best reported | best at pub: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025) |
| 289 | CPGNN-Cheby | 0.7703
±0.0583 | prev best: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer) | 0.8693 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.8586
±0.0180 | |
| 3 | GAT | 0.8560 | |
| 24 | GPR-GNN | 0.7830
±0.0060 best reported | best today: Efficient Learning on Large Graphs using a Densifying Regularity Lemma (2025) |
| 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) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 57 | BM-GCN | 0.6958
±0.0290 | This paper |
| 108 | SAGE | 0.6340
±0.0300 | |
| 133 | H2GCN | 0.6030
±0.0231 best reported | best today: Optimization-Induced Graph Implicit Nonlinear Diffusion (ICML 2022) |
| 169 | MLP | 0.5429 best reported | best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 170 | CPGNN-Cheby | 0.5405
±0.0467 | This paper |
| 177 | CPGNN-MLP | 0.5263
±0.0179 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IBG-NN | 0.7763
±0.0179 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.7747
±0.0128 | |
| 3 | DHGNN | 0.7684
±0.0161 | |
| 10 | GPR-GNN | 0.7480
±0.0050 best reported | best today: Efficient Learning on Large Graphs using a Densifying Regularity Lemma (2025) |
| 39 | H2GCN | 0.6190
±0.0140 best reported | best today: Efficient Learning on Large Graphs using a Densifying Regularity Lemma (2025) |
| 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) |
| 85 | BM-GCN | 0.5141
±0.0110 | This paper |
| 120 | SAGE | 0.4460
±0.0130 | |
| 172 | MLP | 0.3930
±0.0079 best reported | |
| 239 | CPGNN-Cheby | 0.3095
±0.0124 | This paper |
| 245 | CPGNN-MLP | 0.2865
±0.0150 | This paper |
