On Performance Discrepancies Across Local Homophily Levels in Graph Neural Networks

Donald Loveland, Jiong Zhu, Mark Heimann, Benjamin Fish, Michael T. Shaub, Danai Koutra

Main figure for On Performance Discrepancies Across Local Homophily Levels in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Network (GNN) research has highlighted a relationship between high homophily (i.e., the tendency of nodes of the same class to connect) and strong predictive performance in node classification. However, recent work has found the relationship to be more nuanced, demonstrating that simple GNNs can learn in certain heterophilous settings. To resolve these conflicting findings and align closer to real-world datasets, we go beyond the assumption of a global graph homophily level and study the performance of GNNs when the local homophily level of a node deviates from the global homophily level. Through theoretical and empirical analysis, we systematically demonstrate how shifts in local homophily can introduce performance degradation, leading to performance discrepancies across local homophily levels. We ground the practical implications of this work through granular analysis on five real-world datasets with varying global homophily levels, demonstrating that (a) GNNs can fail to generalize to test nodes that deviate from the global homophily of a graph, and (b) high local homophily does not necessarily confer high performance for a node. We further show that GNNs designed for globally heterophilous graphs can alleviate performance discrepancy by improving performance across local homophily levels, offering a new perspective on how these GNNs achieve stronger global performance.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets

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

Classic

Coauthor-CS

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
H2GCN
0.9300
This paper
2
SAGE
0.9200
This paper
3
GCN
0.9100 ±0.0200
This paper
4
GAT
0.8400 ±0.0100
This paper
5
GCNII
0.8200
This paper
6
MLP
0.7900 ±0.0300
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #200 176 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #200 176 places worse
paper 0.7800 ±0.0600
paper 0.7800 ±0.0600 Δ at pub 0.1336
35
GCNII
actual #35 vs paper #424 389 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0396
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #424 389 places worse
paper 0.5600 ±0.1000
paper 0.5600 ±0.1000 Δ at pub 0.2826 Δ today 0.3318
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #285 217 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #285 217 places worse
paper 0.7000 ±0.0700
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.7000 ±0.0700 Δ at pub 0.1270 Δ today 0.1623
138
SAGE
actual #138 vs paper #441 303 places worse
0.8269
best reported
actual #138 vs paper #441 303 places worse
paper 0.5400 ±0.0700
157
GraphSAGE
0.8196 ±0.0739
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #375 217 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #375 217 places worse
paper 0.6000 ±0.0800
paper 0.6000 ±0.0800 Δ at pub 0.2190
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #404 234 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #404 234 places worse
paper 0.5800 ±0.1000
paper 0.5800 ±0.1000 Δ at pub 0.2120 Δ today 0.2282

Squirrel

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
MLP
0.4000 ±0.0300
This paper
2
SAGE
0.3500 ±0.0300
This paper
3
H2GCN
0.3400 ±0.0100
This paper
4
GCNII
0.3200 ±0.0700
This paper
5
GCN
0.2900 ±0.0200
This paper
6
GAT
0.2900 ±0.0400
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere