TMLR 2022

Simplifying Node Classification on Heterophilous Graphs with Compatible Label Propagation

Zhiqiang Zhong, Sergey Ivanov, Jun Pang

Main figure for Simplifying Node Classification on Heterophilous Graphs with Compatible Label Propagation

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been predominant for graph learning tasks; however, recent studies showed that a well-known graph algorithm, Label Propagation (LP), combined with a shallow neural network can achieve comparable performance to GNNs in semi-supervised node classification on graphs with high homophily. In this paper, we show that this approach falls short on graphs with low homophily, where nodes often connect to the nodes of the opposite classes. To overcome this, we carefully design a combination of a base predictor with LP algorithm that enjoys a closed-form solution as well as convergence guarantees. Our algorithm first learns the class compatibility matrix and then aggregates label predictions using LP algorithm weighted by class compatibilities. On a wide variety of benchmarks, we show that our approach achieves the leading performance on graphs with various levels of homophily. Meanwhile, it has orders of magnitude fewer parameters and requires less execution time.

Proposed method: CLP

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 18 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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
28
GPRGNN
actual #28 vs paper #564 536 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #564 536 places worse
paper 0.5531 ±0.0329
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5531 ±0.0329 Δ at pub 0.2309 Δ today 0.3764
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #413 379 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #413 379 places worse
paper 0.6794 ±0.0387
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #485 445 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #485 445 places worse
paper 0.6129 ±0.0520
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.6129 ±0.0520 Δ at pub 0.2361 Δ today 0.3060
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
62
LINK
actual #62 vs paper #510 448 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #510 448 places worse
paper 0.5952 ±0.0411
paper 0.5952 ±0.0411 Δ today 0.3009
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #491 430 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #491 430 places worse
paper 0.6095 ±0.0405
paper 0.6095 ±0.0405 Δ at pub 0.2148 Δ today 0.2866
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #573 362 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #573 362 places worse
paper 0.5412 ±0.0325
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.5412 ±0.0325 Δ at pub 0.0533 Δ today 0.2750
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #572 315 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #572 315 places worse
paper 0.5417 ±0.0318
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5417 ±0.0318 Δ at pub 0.2280 Δ today 0.2516
276
MixHop
actual #276 vs paper #571 295 places worse
0.7784 ±0.0773
best reported
actual #276 vs paper #571 295 places worse
paper 0.5462 ±0.0349
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.5462 ±0.0349 Δ at pub 0.2322 Δ today 0.2322
309
CPGNN
actual #309 vs paper #460 151 places worse
0.7568 ±0.0512
best reported
actual #309 vs paper #460 151 places worse
paper 0.6295 ±0.1524

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6295 ±0.1524 Δ at pub 0.1273
394
CLP
0.6963 ±0.0375
This paper
424
C&S
0.6690 ±0.0660
This paper
490
SuperGAT
actual #490 vs paper #571 81 places worse
0.6108 ±0.0497
best reported
actual #490 vs paper #571 81 places worse
paper 0.5488 ±0.0284

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5488 ±0.0284 Δ at pub 0.0620
568
GCN2
0.5522 ±0.0617
This paper
623
LP
0.1558 ±0.0547
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
22
GPRGNN
actual #22 vs paper #428 406 places worse
0.9157 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #428 406 places worse
paper 0.5503 ±0.0415
paper 0.5503 ±0.0415 Δ at pub 0.2686 Δ today 0.3654
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #298 274 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #298 274 places worse
paper 0.6819 ±0.0455
paper 0.6819 ±0.0455 Δ at pub 0.1667 Δ today 0.2317
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #357 319 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #357 319 places worse
paper 0.6232 ±0.0432
paper 0.6232 ±0.0432 Δ at pub 0.1687 Δ today 0.2620
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #416 348 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #416 348 places worse
paper 0.5726 ±0.0646
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5726 ±0.0646 Δ at pub 0.2544 Δ today 0.2897
138
SAGE
0.8269
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #428 270 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #428 270 places worse
paper 0.5518 ±0.0254
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5518 ±0.0254 Δ at pub 0.0672 Δ today 0.2672
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #425 255 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #425 255 places worse
paper 0.5581 ±0.0154
paper 0.5581 ±0.0154 Δ at pub 0.0997 Δ today 0.2501
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #473 290 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #473 290 places worse
paper 0.5129 ±0.0712
paper 0.5129 ±0.0712 Δ at pub 0.2821
281
CLP
0.7036 ±0.0483
This paper
283
CPGNN
actual #283 vs paper #300 17 places worse
0.7027 ±0.0512
best reported
actual #283 vs paper #300 17 places worse
paper 0.6804 ±0.0585

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6804 ±0.0585 Δ at pub 0.0223
310
C&S
0.6704 ±0.0529
This paper
387
LINK
actual #387 vs paper #520 133 places worse
0.5916
best reported
actual #387 vs paper #520 133 places worse
paper 0.4647 ±0.1228

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4647 ±0.1228 Δ today 0.1269
416
SuperGAT
actual #416 vs paper #431 15 places worse
0.5730 ±0.0853
best reported
actual #416 vs paper #431 15 places worse
paper 0.5447 ±0.0179

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5447 ±0.0179 Δ at pub 0.0283 Δ today 0.0283
444
GCN2
0.5387 ±0.0638
This paper
581
LP
0.1851 ±0.0319
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
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #404 352 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #404 352 places worse
paper 0.2772 ±0.0092
paper 0.2772 ±0.0092 Δ at pub 0.0832 Δ today 0.1220
56
FAGCN
actual #56 vs paper #293 237 places worse
0.3970
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #293 237 places worse
paper 0.3260 ±0.0085
paper 0.3260 ±0.0085 Δ at pub 0.0710
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #297 226 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #297 226 places worse
paper 0.3227 ±0.0091
paper 0.3227 ±0.0091 Δ at pub 0.0359 Δ today 0.0658
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #411 276 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #411 276 places worse
paper 0.2682 ±0.0097
paper 0.2682 ±0.0097 Δ at pub 0.1008
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #406 244 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #406 244 places worse
paper 0.2746 ±0.0139
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.2746 ±0.0139 Δ at pub 0.0476 Δ today 0.0902
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #408 226 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #408 226 places worse
paper 0.2737 ±0.0103
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.2737 ±0.0103 Δ at pub 0.0237 Δ today 0.0868
208
CPGNN
actual #208 vs paper #296 88 places worse
0.3560 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #208 vs paper #296 88 places worse
paper 0.3242 ±0.0065
paper 0.3242 ±0.0065 Δ today 0.0318
288
CLP
0.3310 ±0.0065
This paper
302
C&S
0.3194 ±0.0130
This paper
410
GCN2
0.2714 ±0.0065
This paper
412
SuperGAT
0.2669 ±0.0062
This paper
418
LINK
actual #418 vs paper #442 24 places worse
0.2625 ±0.0143
best reported
actual #418 vs paper #442 24 places worse
paper 0.2403 ±0.0061
paper 0.2403 ±0.0061 Δ today 0.0222
439
LP
actual #439 vs paper #491 52 places worse
0.2462 ±0.0051
best reported
actual #439 vs paper #491 52 places worse
paper 0.1769 ±0.0057
paper 0.1769 ±0.0057 Δ today 0.0693

LINKX Benchmarks

Deezer

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CLP
0.6569 ±0.0032
This paper
2
FAGCN
0.6504 ±0.0045
This paper
3
CPGNN
0.6495 ±0.0039
This paper
4
MixHop
0.6416 ±0.0085
This paper
5
C&S
0.6392 ±0.0071
This paper
6
MLP
0.6377 ±0.0030
This paper
7
H2GCN
0.6282 ±0.0068
This paper
8
GPRGNN
0.6274 ±0.0039
This paper
9
GCN2
0.6233 ±0.0081
This paper
10
GCN
0.5994 ±0.0055
This paper
11
SuperGAT
0.5707 ±0.0064
This paper
12
GAT
actual #12 vs paper #16 4 places worse
0.5599 ±0.0378
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #16 4 places worse
paper 0.2434 ±0.0121
13
LINK
0.5595 ±0.0034
This paper
14
LP
0.5544 ±0.0046
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere