NeurIPS 2023

GraphPatcher: Mitigating Degree Bias for Graph Neural Networks via Test-time Augmentation

Mingxuan Ju, Tong Zhao, Wenhao Yu, Neil Shah, Yanfang Ye

Main figure for GraphPatcher: Mitigating Degree Bias for Graph Neural Networks via Test-time Augmentation

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that graph neural networks (GNNs) exhibit strong biases towards the node degree: they usually perform satisfactorily on high-degree nodes with rich neighbor information but struggle with low-degree nodes. Existing works tackle this problem by deriving either designated GNN architectures or training strategies specifically for low-degree nodes. Though effective, these approaches unintentionally create an artificial out-of-distribution scenario, where models mainly or even only observe low-degree nodes during the training, leading to a downgraded performance for high-degree nodes that GNNs originally perform well at. In light of this, we propose a test-time augmentation framework, namely GraphPatcher, to enhance test-time generalization of any GNNs on low-degree nodes. Specifically, GraphPatcher iteratively generates virtual nodes to patch artificially created low-degree nodes via corruptions, aiming at progressively reconstructing target GNN's predictions over a sequence of increasingly corrupted nodes. Through this scheme, GraphPatcher not only learns how to enhance low-degree nodes (when the neighborhoods are heavily corrupted) but also preserves the original superior performance of GNNs on high-degree nodes (when lightly corrupted). Additionally, GraphPatcher is model-agnostic and can also mitigate the degree bias for either self-supervised or supervised GNNs. Comprehensive experiments are conducted over seven benchmark datasets and GraphPatcher consistently enhances common GNNs' overall performance by up to 3.6\ The source code is publicly available at.

Proposed method: GraphPatcher

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
528
Tail-GNN
0.8068 ±0.0058
This paper
541
ColbBrew
0.7824 ±0.0062
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ±0.0025
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #171 159 places worse
0.9514 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #171 159 places worse
paper 0.8816 ±0.0066
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.8816 ±0.0066 Δ at pub 0.0544 Δ today 0.0698
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
171
TuneUp
0.8846 ±0.0097
This paper
172
EERM
0.8807 ±0.0030
This paper
173
GTrans
0.8806 ±0.0096
This paper
178
DropEdge
0.8756 ±0.0064
This paper
179
Tail-GNN
0.8702 ±0.0033
This paper
183
ColbBrew
0.8580 ±0.0079
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#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
60
EERM
actual #60 vs paper #404 344 places worse
0.3934 ±0.0321
best reported
actual #60 vs paper #404 344 places worse
paper 0.2765 ±0.0029
paper 0.2765 ±0.0029 Δ today 0.1169
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
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