Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network

Junfu Wang, Yuanfang Guo, Liang Yang, Yunhong Wang

Main figure for Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown remarkable success in graph representation learning. Unfortunately, current weight assignment schemes in standard GNNs, such as the calculation based on node degrees or pair-wise representations, can hardly be effective in processing the networks with heterophily, in which the connected nodes usually possess different labels or features. Existing heterophilic GNNs tend to ignore the modeling of heterophily of each edge, which is also a vital part in tackling the heterophily problem. In this paper, we first propose a heterophily-aware attention scheme and reveal the benefits of modeling the edge heterophily, i.e., if a GNN assigns different weights to edges according to different heterophilic types, it can learn effective local attention patterns, enabling nodes to acquire appropriate information from distinct neighbors. Then, we propose a novel Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network (HA-GAT) by fully exploring and utilizing the local distribution as the underlying heterophily, to handle the networks with different homophily ratios. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed HA-GAT, we analyze the proposed heterophily-aware attention scheme and local distribution exploration, by seeking an interpretation from their mechanism. Extensive results demonstrate that our HA-GAT achieves state-of-the-art performances on eight datasets with different homophily ratios in both the supervised and semi-supervised node classification tasks.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 5 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
30
GPR-GNN
actual #30 vs paper #63 33 places worse
0.9291 ±0.0132
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #63 33 places worse
paper 0.8952 ±0.0441

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8952 ±0.0441 Δ at pub 0.0339
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #67 33 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #67 33 places worse
paper 0.8929 ±0.0543

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8929 ±0.0543 Δ at pub 0.0297 Δ today 0.0301
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #398 358 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #398 358 places worse
paper 0.6947 ±0.0513
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.6947 ±0.0513 Δ at pub 0.1543 Δ today 0.2242
44
HA-GAT
0.9175 ±0.0352
This paper
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #164 111 places worse
0.8420 ±0.0492
actual #53 vs paper #164 111 places worse
paper 0.8420 ±0.0492

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8420 ±0.0492 Δ at pub 0.0177
68
DMP
actual #68 vs paper #210 142 places worse
0.8919
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #210 142 places worse
paper 0.8164 ±0.0520

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8164 ±0.0520 Δ today 0.0755
113
ChebyNet
actual #113 vs paper #184 71 places worse
0.8622 ±0.0245
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #184 71 places worse
paper 0.8301 ±0.0603

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8301 ±0.0603 Δ today 0.0321
144
BM-GCN
actual #144 vs paper #273 129 places worse
0.8513 ±0.0464
best reported
actual #144 vs paper #273 129 places worse
paper 0.7814 ±0.0480

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7814 ±0.0480 Δ at pub 0.0699
189
SAGE
0.8269
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #274 63 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #274 63 places worse
paper 0.7803 ±0.0431

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7803 ±0.0431 Δ at pub 0.0177 Δ today 0.0359
251
JKNet-GCN
0.7962 ±0.0394
This paper
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #289 32 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #289 32 places worse
paper 0.7700 ±0.0682
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7700 ±0.0682 Δ at pub 0.0140 Δ today 0.0233
258
GATv2
0.7929 ±0.0403
This paper
415
Geom-GCN
actual #415 vs paper #562 147 places worse
0.6760
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #562 147 places worse
paper 0.5559 ±0.0159
paper 0.5559 ±0.0159 Δ at pub 0.1201
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
8
HA-GAT
0.9344 ±0.0284
This paper
11
GPR-GNN
actual #11 vs paper #11
0.9279 ±0.0312
actual #11 vs paper #11
paper 0.9279 ±0.0312

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9279 ±0.0312 Δ at pub 0.0122
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #35 11 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #35 11 places worse
paper 0.8907 ±0.0420

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8907 ±0.0420 Δ at pub 0.0229
31
DMP
actual #31 vs paper #53 22 places worse
0.8919
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #53 22 places worse
paper 0.8700 ±0.0552

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8700 ±0.0552 Δ today 0.0219
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #249 181 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #249 181 places worse
paper 0.7368 ±0.0767
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.7368 ±0.0767 Δ at pub 0.0902 Δ today 0.1255
101
ChebyNet
0.8459 ±0.0449
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
156
BM-GCN
0.8197 ±0.0613
This paper
157
GraphSAGE
actual #157 vs paper #157
0.8196 ±0.0739
actual #157 vs paper #157
paper 0.8196 ±0.0739
prev best: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8196 ±0.0739 Δ at pub 0.0596
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #189 31 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #189 31 places worse
paper 0.7863 ±0.0426

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7863 ±0.0426 Δ at pub 0.0327
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #210 40 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #210 40 places worse
paper 0.7754 ±0.0421

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7754 ±0.0421 Δ at pub 0.0166 Δ today 0.0328
177
GATv2
0.8033 ±0.0333
This paper
216
JKNet-GCN
0.7716 ±0.0421
This paper
342
Geom-GCN
actual #342 vs paper #395 53 places worse
0.6412
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #395 53 places worse
paper 0.5856 ±0.0177
paper 0.5856 ±0.0177 Δ at pub 0.0225 Δ today 0.0556
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
13
HA-GAT(M)
0.4216 ±0.0114
This paper
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.4026 ±0.0108
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.4026 ±0.0108

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4026 ±0.0108 Δ at pub 0.0008
53
GPR-GNN
actual #53 vs paper #62 9 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #62 9 places worse
paper 0.3921 ±0.0127

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3921 ±0.0127 Δ at pub 0.0070 Δ today 0.0071
59
BM-GCN
0.3956 ±0.0143
This paper
64
ChebyNet
0.3917 ±0.0143
This paper
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #106 38 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #106 38 places worse
paper 0.3778 ±0.0117

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3778 ±0.0117 Δ at pub 0.0077 Δ today 0.0121
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #169 98 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #169 98 places worse
paper 0.3635 ±0.0076
paper 0.3635 ±0.0076 Δ at pub 0.0205 Δ today 0.0250
87
Geom-GCN
actual #87 vs paper #305 218 places worse
0.3810
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #305 218 places worse
paper 0.3181 ±0.0024
paper 0.3181 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0629
122
DMP
0.3726 ±0.0179
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #284 149 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #284 149 places worse
paper 0.3331 ±0.0109
paper 0.3331 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.0359
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #252 70 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #252 70 places worse
paper 0.3444 ±0.0106

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3444 ±0.0106 Δ at pub 0.0161
230
GATv2
actual #230 vs paper #235 5 places worse
0.3494 ±0.0121
actual #230 vs paper #235 5 places worse
paper 0.3494 ±0.0121
paper 0.3494 ±0.0121 Δ at pub 0.0440
254
JKNet-GCN
0.3441 ±0.0130
This paper
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere