ICML 2022

Finding Global Homophily in Graph Neural Networks When Meeting Heterophily

Xiang Li, Renyu Zhu, Yao Cheng, Caihua Shan, Siqiang Luo, Dongsheng Li, Wei Qian

Main figure for Finding Global Homophily in Graph Neural Networks When Meeting Heterophily

Abstract

We investigate graph neural networks on graphs with heterophily. Some existing methods amplify a node's neighborhood with multi-hop neighbors to include more nodes with homophily. However, it is a significant challenge to set personalized neighborhood sizes for different nodes. Further, for other homophilous nodes excluded in the neighborhood, they are ignored for information aggregation. To address these problems, we propose two models GloGNN and GloGNN++, which generate a node's embedding by aggregating information from global nodes in the graph. In each layer, both models learn a coefficient matrix to capture the correlations between nodes, based on which neighborhood aggregation is performed. The coefficient matrix allows signed values and is derived from an optimization problem that has a closed-form solution. We further accelerate neighborhood aggregation and derive a linear time complexity. We theoretically explain the models' effectiveness by proving that both the coefficient matrix and the generated node embedding matrix have the desired grouping effect. We conduct extensive experiments to compare our models against 11 other competitors on 15 benchmark datasets in a wide range of domains, scales and graph heterophilies. Experimental results show that our methods achieve superior performance and are also very efficient.

Proposed method: GloGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
141
GloGNN
actual #141 vs paper #164 23 places worse
0.8432
actual #141 vs paper #164 23 places worse
paper 0.8432

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8432 Δ at pub 0.0112
309
CPGNN
actual #309 vs paper #385 76 places worse
0.7568 ±0.0512
best reported
actual #309 vs paper #385 76 places worse
paper 0.7042

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7042 Δ at pub 0.0526
559
H_A
0.5622
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
74
GloGNN
actual #74 vs paper #119 45 places worse
0.8595 ±0.0510
best reported
actual #74 vs paper #119 45 places worse
paper 0.8351

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8351 Δ today 0.0244
138
SAGE
0.8269
504
H_A
0.4838
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
58
GloGNN
actual #58 vs paper #116 58 places worse
0.3959 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #116 58 places worse
paper 0.3735
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
437
H_A
0.2473
This paper

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DC-GNN
0.8669 ±0.0022
2
M2M-GNN
0.8594 ±0.0040
3
GloGNN
actual #3 vs paper #3
0.8574 ±0.0042
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #3
paper 0.8557

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8557 Δ today 0.0017
29
GIN
0.8268 ±0.0032
33
H_A
0.8225
This paper
51
MLP
0.7534 ±0.0064
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere