AAAI 2022

Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering

Shouheng Li, Dongwoo Kim, Qing Wang

Main figure for Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering

Abstract

While a growing body of literature has been studying new Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) that work on both homophilic and heterophilic graphs, little has been done on adapting classical GNNs to less-homophilic graphs. Although the ability to handle less-homophilic graphs is restricted, classical GNNs still stand out in several nice properties such as efficiency, simplicity, and explainability. In this work, we propose a novel graph restructuring method that can be integrated into any type of GNNs, including classical GNNs, to leverage the benefits of existing GNNs while alleviating their limitations. Our contribution is threefold: [label= *)] learning the weight of pseudo-eigenvectors for an adaptive spectral clustering that aligns well with known node labels, proposing a new density-aware homophilic metric that is robust to label imbalance, and reconstructing the adjacency matrix based on the result of adaptive spectral clustering to maximize homophilic scores. The experimental results show that our graph restructuring method can significantly boost the performance of six classical GNNs by an average of 25\

Proposed method: GCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets SOTA at publication on 1 3 baseline values reported too low

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 #157 129 places worse
0.8460 ±0.0400
actual #28 vs paper #157 129 places worse
paper 0.8460 ±0.0400
prev best: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8460 ±0.0400 Δ at pub 0.0620 Δ today 0.0835
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
46
APPNP
actual #46 vs paper #239 193 places worse
0.9131 ±0.0197
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #239 193 places worse
paper 0.8030 ±0.0480
paper 0.8030 ±0.0480 Δ at pub 0.1034 Δ today 0.1101
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
170
ARMA
actual #170 vs paper #201 31 places worse
0.8397 ±0.0377
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #201 31 places worse
paper 0.8220 ±0.0510

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8220 ±0.0510 Δ at pub 0.0177 Δ today 0.0177
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #246 35 places worse
0.7980 ±0.0430
actual #211 vs paper #246 35 places worse
paper 0.7980 ±0.0430
prev best: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.7980 ±0.0430 Δ at pub 0.2035
243
CHEV
0.8000 ±0.0480
This paper
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #268 11 places worse
0.7840 ±0.0540
actual #257 vs paper #268 11 places worse
paper 0.7840 ±0.0540

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7840 ±0.0540 Δ at pub 0.0143
330
SGC
actual #330 vs paper #330
0.7440 ±0.0600
actual #330 vs paper #330
paper 0.7440 ±0.0600
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #160 139 places worse
0.9181 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #160 139 places worse
paper 0.8160 ±0.0540
paper 0.8160 ±0.0540 Δ at pub 0.0992 Δ today 0.1021
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
82
ARMA
actual #82 vs paper #165 83 places worse
0.8562 ±0.0213
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #165 83 places worse
paper 0.8110 ±0.0610

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8110 ±0.0610 Δ at pub 0.0452 Δ today 0.0452
138
SAGE
0.8269
146
GPRGNN (GDC)
0.8240 ±0.0470
This paper
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #158
0.8190 ±0.0540
actual #158 vs paper #158
paper 0.8190 ±0.0540
prev best: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.8190 ±0.0540 Δ at pub 0.2000
166
CHEV(GDC)
0.8110 ±0.0320
This paper
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #185 15 places worse
0.7920 ±0.0630
actual #170 vs paper #185 15 places worse
paper 0.7920 ±0.0630
paper 0.7920 ±0.0630 Δ at pub 0.1342
252
SGC
actual #252 vs paper #252
0.7350 ±0.0430
actual #252 vs paper #252
paper 0.7350 ±0.0430
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
41
APPNP
actual #41 vs paper #190 149 places worse
0.4046 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #190 149 places worse
paper 0.3590 ±0.0110
paper 0.3590 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0386 Δ today 0.0456
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #176 41 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #176 41 places worse
paper 0.3620 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3620 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0070
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #207 25 places worse
0.3560 ±0.0070
actual #182 vs paper #207 25 places worse
paper 0.3560 ±0.0070
paper 0.3560 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0510
185
CHEV
0.3600 ±0.0110
This paper
191
ARMA (GDC)
0.3590 ±0.0050
This paper
237
SGC
actual #237 vs paper #237
0.3490 ±0.0070
actual #237 vs paper #237
paper 0.3490 ±0.0070
paper 0.3490 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0400
255
GPRGNN (GDC)
0.3440 ±0.0100
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #79 76 places worse
0.6650 ±0.0260
actual #3 vs paper #79 76 places worse
paper 0.6650 ±0.0260

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6650 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0150 Δ today 0.1910
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #76 24 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #76 24 places worse
paper 0.6690 ±0.0310
paper 0.6690 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0070 Δ today 0.0343
65
ARMA
0.6840 ±0.0230
This paper
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #82 10 places worse
0.6748 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #82 10 places worse
paper 0.6550 ±0.0220
paper 0.6550 ±0.0220 Δ at pub 0.0097 Δ today 0.0198
76
SGC
0.6710 ±0.0290
This paper
78
CHEV
0.6680 ±0.0180
This paper
79
APPNP
0.6670 ±0.0270
This paper
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
169
MLP
0.5429
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #68 22 places worse
0.5570 ±0.0240
actual #46 vs paper #68 22 places worse
paper 0.5570 ±0.0240

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5570 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0080 Δ today 0.0497
67
GAT
actual #67 vs paper #67
0.5630 ±0.0220
actual #67 vs paper #67
paper 0.5630 ±0.0220
paper 0.5630 ±0.0220 Δ at pub 0.0500
68
APPNP
0.5590 ±0.0290
This paper
70
ARMA
0.5560 ±0.0170
This paper
72
CHEV
0.5500 ±0.0200
This paper
76
GPRGNN
actual #76 vs paper #102 26 places worse
0.5435 ±0.0087
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #102 26 places worse
paper 0.4710 ±0.0240
paper 0.4710 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0193 Δ today 0.0725
81
SGC
0.5230 ±0.0230
This paper
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
actual #3 vs paper #52 49 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0350
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #52 49 places worse
paper 0.8430 ±0.0420
paper 0.8430 ±0.0420 Δ today 0.0580
5
GPRGNN
actual #5 vs paper #40 35 places worse
0.8990 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #40 35 places worse
paper 0.8550 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8550 ±0.0500 Δ today 0.0440
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
48
ARMA
0.8450 ±0.0030
This paper
54
CHEV
0.8430 ±0.0320
This paper
53
GAT
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.8430 ±0.0370
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.8430 ±0.0370
paper 0.8430 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.2650
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #63
0.8310 ±0.0320
actual #63 vs paper #63
paper 0.8310 ±0.0320
paper 0.8310 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.2134
69
GraphSAGE
0.8118 ±0.0556
91
SGC
0.7780 ±0.0470
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere