AAAI 2021

Block Modeling-Guided Graph Convolutional Neural Networks

Dongxiao He, Chundong Liang, Huixin Liu, Ming-Chang Wen, Pengfei Jiao, Zhiyong Feng

Main figure for 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

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #169 148 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #169 148 places worse
paper 0.8648 ±0.0112
paper 0.8648 ±0.0112 Δ at pub 0.0069 Δ today 0.0356
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
51
H2GCN
actual #51 vs paper #112 61 places worse
0.8882 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #112 61 places worse
paper 0.8769 ±0.0137

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8769 ±0.0137 Δ today 0.0113
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
actual #724 vs paper #787 63 places worse
0.7414 ±0.0140
actual #724 vs paper #787 63 places worse
paper 0.7414 ±0.0140
paper 0.7414 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.1254 Δ today 0.0354
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #372 328 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #372 328 places worse
paper 0.7267 ±0.0199
paper 0.7267 ±0.0199 Δ at pub 0.0676 Δ today 0.0766
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
111
H2GCN
actual #111 vs paper #138 27 places worse
0.7595 ±0.0218
actual #111 vs paper #138 27 places worse
paper 0.7595 ±0.0218
paper 0.7595 ±0.0218 Δ at pub 0.3225
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
actual #350 vs paper #635 285 places worse
0.6958 ±0.0231
actual #350 vs paper #635 285 places worse
paper 0.6958 ±0.0231
paper 0.6958 ±0.0231 Δ at pub 0.0858
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
16
H2GCN
actual #16 vs paper #117 101 places worse
0.9361 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #117 101 places worse
paper 0.8878 ±0.0053
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #190 172 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #190 172 places worse
paper 0.8739 ±0.0068
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
actual #210 vs paper #226 16 places worse
0.8638 ±0.0061
actual #210 vs paper #226 16 places worse
paper 0.8638 ±0.0061
paper 0.8638 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.1218
212
CPGNN-MLP
0.8683 ±0.0078
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
30
GPR-GNN
actual #30 vs paper #160 130 places worse
0.8459 ±0.0437
actual #30 vs paper #160 130 places worse
paper 0.8459 ±0.0437

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8459 ±0.0437 Δ at pub 0.0016 Δ today 0.0832
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #186 152 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #186 152 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0619

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8270 ±0.0619 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0960
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #202 162 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #202 162 places worse
paper 0.8216 ±0.0821

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8216 ±0.0821 Δ at pub 0.0270 Δ today 0.0973
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
144
BM-GCN
actual #144 vs paper #144
0.8513 ±0.0464
actual #144 vs paper #144
paper 0.8513 ±0.0464

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8513 ±0.0464 Δ at pub 0.0323
191
CPGNN-MLP
actual #191 vs paper #286 95 places worse
0.8262 ±0.0688
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #286 95 places worse
paper 0.7709 ±0.0422

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7709 ±0.0422 Δ at pub 0.0553
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #563 306 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #563 306 places worse
paper 0.5541 ±0.0347
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5541 ±0.0347 Δ at pub 0.0840 Δ today 0.2392
289
CPGNN-Cheby
actual #289 vs paper #289
0.7703 ±0.0583
actual #289 vs paper #289
paper 0.7703 ±0.0583

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7703 ±0.0583 Δ at pub 0.0107
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
24
GPR-GNN
actual #24 vs paper #56 32 places worse
0.7830 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #56 32 places worse
paper 0.6978 ±0.0197
paper 0.6978 ±0.0197 Δ today 0.0852
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #76 24 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #76 24 places worse
paper 0.6704 ±0.0223

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6704 ±0.0223 Δ at pub 0.0056 Δ today 0.0329
57
BM-GCN
0.6958 ±0.0290
This paper
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
133
H2GCN
actual #133 vs paper #187 54 places worse
0.6030 ±0.0231
best reported
actual #133 vs paper #187 54 places worse
paper 0.5158 ±0.0151
paper 0.5158 ±0.0151 Δ today 0.0872
169
MLP
actual #169 vs paper #207 38 places worse
0.5429
best reported
actual #169 vs paper #207 38 places worse
paper 0.4820 ±0.0263
paper 0.4820 ±0.0263 Δ today 0.0609
170
CPGNN-Cheby
0.5405 ±0.0467
This paper
177
CPGNN-MLP
0.5263 ±0.0179
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #10 vs paper #242 232 places worse
0.7480 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #242 232 places worse
paper 0.2945 ±0.0127
paper 0.2945 ±0.0127 Δ today 0.4535
39
H2GCN
actual #39 vs paper #242 203 places worse
0.6190 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #242 203 places worse
paper 0.2891 ±0.0178
paper 0.2891 ±0.0178 Δ today 0.3299
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #124 78 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #124 78 places worse
paper 0.4407 ±0.0195
paper 0.4407 ±0.0195 Δ at pub 0.1083 Δ today 0.1660
85
BM-GCN
0.5141 ±0.0110
This paper
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
172
MLP
actual #172 vs paper #229 57 places worse
0.3930 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #229 57 places worse
paper 0.3335 ±0.0124
239
CPGNN-Cheby
0.3095 ±0.0124
This paper
245
CPGNN-MLP
0.2865 ±0.0150
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere