Steering Graph Neural Networks with Pinning Control

Acong Zhang, P. Li, Guanrong Chen

Main figure for Steering Graph Neural Networks with Pinning Control

Abstract

In the semi-supervised setting where labeled data are largely limited, it remains to be a big challenge for message passing based graph neural networks (GNNs) to learn feature representations for the nodes with the same class label that is distributed discontinuously over the graph. To resolve the discontinuous information transmission problem, we propose a control principle to supervise representation learning by leveraging the prototypes (i.e., class centers) of labeled data. Treating graph learning as a discrete dynamic process and the prototypes of labeled data as “desired” class representations, we borrow the pinning control idea from automatic control theory to design learning feedback controllers for the feature learning process, attempting to minimize the differences between message passing derived features and the class prototypes in every round so as to generate class-relevant features. Specifically, we equip every node with an optimal controller in each round through learning the matching relationships between nodes and the class prototypes, enabling nodes to rectify the aggregated information from incompatible neighbors in a graph with strong heterophily. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed PCGCN model achieves better performances than deep GNNs and other competitive heterophily-oriented methods, especially when the graph has very few labels and strong heterophily.

Proposed method: dynamic pinning control method

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 19 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 #269 241 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #269 241 places worse
paper 0.7838 ±0.0436
paper 0.7838 ±0.0436 Δ at pub 0.1454 Δ today 0.1457
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #258 224 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #258 224 places worse
paper 0.7919 ±0.0630
39
GGCN
actual #39 vs paper #148 109 places worse
0.9213 ±0.0305
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #148 109 places worse
paper 0.8486 ±0.0455
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.8486 ±0.0455 Δ today 0.0727
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #186 133 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0365
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #186 133 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0590

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8270 ±0.0590 Δ at pub 0.0150 Δ today 0.0730
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #364 303 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #364 303 places worse
paper 0.7243 ±0.0560
paper 0.7243 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.1718
70
GCNII
actual #70 vs paper #280 210 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0443
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #280 210 places worse
paper 0.7757 ±0.0380
paper 0.7757 ±0.0380 Δ at pub 0.0289 Δ today 0.1161
124
dynamic pinning control method
0.8595 ±0.0390
This paper
141
GloGNN
actual #141 vs paper #164 23 places worse
0.8524 ±0.0490
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #164 23 places worse
paper 0.8432 ±0.0415

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8432 ±0.0415 Δ today 0.0092
150
H2GCN-1
0.8486 ±0.0670
This paper
189
SAGE
0.8269
203
H2GCN-2
0.8216 ±0.0520
This paper
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #576 365 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #576 365 places worse
paper 0.5216 ±0.0663
paper 0.5216 ±0.0663 Δ at pub 0.2764 Δ today 0.2946
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #568 311 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #568 311 places worse
paper 0.5514 ±0.0516
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5514 ±0.0516 Δ at pub 0.2326 Δ today 0.2419
276
MixHop
0.7784 ±0.0773
This paper
325
LINKX
0.7460 ±0.0837
This paper
415
Geom-GCN
actual #415 vs paper #499 84 places worse
0.6760
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #499 84 places worse
paper 0.6018
paper 0.6018 Δ at pub 0.0742
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
15
GGCN
actual #15 vs paper #79 64 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0367
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #79 64 places worse
paper 0.8568 ±0.0663

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8568 ±0.0663 Δ today 0.0662
22
GPRGNN
actual #22 vs paper #177 155 places worse
0.9157 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #177 155 places worse
paper 0.8027 ±0.0811

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8027 ±0.0811 Δ at pub 0.1109 Δ today 0.1130
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #182 158 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #182 158 places worse
paper 0.7979 ±0.0420
paper 0.7979 ±0.0420 Δ at pub 0.1157
35
GCNII
actual #35 vs paper #203 168 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0396
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #203 168 places worse
paper 0.7786 ±0.0370
paper 0.7786 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.0640 Δ today 0.1132
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #216 178 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #216 178 places worse
paper 0.7706 ±0.0630
paper 0.7706 ±0.0630 Δ at pub 0.1146
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 ±0.0426

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8351 ±0.0426 Δ at pub 0.0244 Δ today 0.0244
78
PCGCN
0.8594 ±0.0610
This paper
123
LINKX
actual #123 vs paper #203 80 places worse
0.8346 ±0.0061
best reported
actual #123 vs paper #203 80 places worse
paper 0.7784 ±0.0581

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7784 ±0.0581 Δ today 0.0562
138
SAGE
0.8269
153
H2GCN-1
0.8216 ±0.0480
This paper
154
H2GCN-2
0.8216 ±0.0600
This paper
157
GraphSAGE
actual #157 vs paper #224 67 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0739
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #224 67 places worse
paper 0.7559 ±0.0520

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7559 ±0.0520 Δ at pub 0.0637
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #358 200 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #358 200 places worse
paper 0.6189 ±0.0505
paper 0.6189 ±0.0505 Δ at pub 0.2001
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #372 202 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #372 202 places worse
paper 0.6054 ±0.0530
paper 0.6054 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.1866 Δ today 0.2028
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #249 66 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #249 66 places worse
paper 0.7351 ±0.0634

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7351 ±0.0634 Δ at pub 0.0599
342
Geom-GCN
actual #342 vs paper #342
0.6412
actual #342 vs paper #342
paper 0.6412
paper 0.6412 Δ at pub 0.0331
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
38
GCNII
actual #38 vs paper #254 216 places worse
0.4082 ±0.0179
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #254 216 places worse
paper 0.3440 ±0.0070
paper 0.3440 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0304 Δ today 0.0642
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #240 198 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #240 198 places worse
paper 0.3478 ±0.0120
paper 0.3478 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0548
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #247 195 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #247 195 places worse
paper 0.3463 ±0.0122
paper 0.3463 ±0.0122 Δ at pub 0.0467 Δ today 0.0529
56
FAGCN
actual #56 vs paper #250 194 places worse
0.3970
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #250 194 places worse
paper 0.3451 ±0.0070
paper 0.3451 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0519
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 ±0.0130
62
GGCN
actual #62 vs paper #113 51 places worse
0.3929 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #113 51 places worse
paper 0.3754 ±0.0156

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3754 ±0.0156 Δ today 0.0175
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #255 187 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #255 187 places worse
paper 0.3437 ±0.0130
paper 0.3437 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0418 Δ today 0.0462
87
Geom-GCN
actual #87 vs paper #305 218 places worse
0.3810
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #305 218 places worse
paper 0.3163 ±0.0115
paper 0.3163 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0647
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #405 270 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #405 270 places worse
paper 0.2751 ±0.0120
paper 0.2751 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0939
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234 Δ at pub 0.0357 Δ today 0.0426
164
dynamic pinning control method
0.3643 ±0.0090
This paper
165
PCGCN
0.3643 ±0.0090
This paper
180
LINKX
0.3610 ±0.0155
This paper
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #371 189 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #371 189 places worse
paper 0.2903 ±0.0090
paper 0.2903 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0702
190
H2GCN-1
actual #190 vs paper #190
0.3594 ±0.0130
actual #190 vs paper #190
paper 0.3594 ±0.0130

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3594 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0008
204
H2GCN-2
actual #204 vs paper #209 5 places worse
0.3562 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #209 5 places worse
paper 0.3555 ±0.0160

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3555 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0007 Δ today 0.0007
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