Dirichlet Energy Enhancement of Graph Neural Networks by Framelet Augmentation

Jialin Chen Yuelin Wang Cristian Bodnar Rex Ying Pietro Li\`o Yu Guang Wang

Main figure for Dirichlet Energy Enhancement of Graph Neural Networks by Framelet Augmentation

Abstract

Graph convolutions have been a pivotal element in learning graph representations. However, recursively aggregating neighboring information with graph convolutions leads to indistinguishable node features in deep layers, which is known as the over-smoothing issue. The performance of graph neural networks decays fast as the number of stacked layers increases, and the Dirichlet energy associated with the graph decreases to zero as well. In this work, we introduce a framelet system into the analysis of Dirichlet energy and take a multi-scale perspective to leverage the Dirichlet energy and alleviate the over-smoothing issue. Specifically, we develop a Framelet Augmentation strategy by adjusting the update rules with positive and negative increments for low-pass and high-passes respectively. Based on that, we design the Energy Enhanced Convolution (EEConv), which is an effective and practical operation that is proved to strictly enhance Dirichlet energy. From a message-passing perspective, EEConv inherits multi-hop aggregation property from the framelet transform and takes into account all hops in the multi-scale representation, which benefits the node classification tasks over heterophilous graphs. Experiments show that deep GNNs with EEConv achieve state-of-the-art performance over various node classification datasets, especially for heterophilous graphs, while also lifting the Dirichlet energy as the network goes deeper.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 6 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
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #194 141 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0365
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #194 141 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0610

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8240 ±0.0610 Δ at pub 0.0760 Δ today 0.0760
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #194 133 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #194 133 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0690

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8240 ±0.0690 Δ at pub 0.0721
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 0.7750 ±0.0380
paper 0.7750 ±0.0380 Δ at pub 0.0296 Δ today 0.1168
189
SAGE
0.8269
196
UFG
actual #196 vs paper #257 61 places worse
0.8230 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #196 vs paper #257 61 places worse
paper 0.7930 ±0.0280

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7930 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.0300
197
EE-UFG
0.8230 ±0.0320
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 0.5220 ±0.0660
paper 0.5220 ±0.0660 Δ at pub 0.2780 Δ today 0.2942
217
GRAND
actual #217 vs paper #305 88 places worse
0.8140 ±0.0350
best reported
actual #217 vs paper #305 88 places worse
paper 0.7570 ±0.0330

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7570 ±0.0330 Δ at pub 0.0450 Δ today 0.0570
220
EGNN
actual #220 vs paper #229 9 places worse
0.8134 ±0.0156
best reported
actual #220 vs paper #229 9 places worse
paper 0.8100 ±0.0080

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8100 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0034 Δ today 0.0034
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 0.5510 ±0.0520
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5510 ±0.0520 Δ at pub 0.2330 Δ today 0.2423
276
MixHop
actual #276 vs paper #278 2 places worse
0.7784 ±0.0773
best reported
actual #276 vs paper #278 2 places worse
paper 0.7780 ±0.0250
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7780 ±0.0250 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0004
499
PairNorm
0.6030 ±0.0430
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
35
GCNII
actual #35 vs paper #202 167 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0396
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #202 167 places worse
paper 0.7790 ±0.0380
paper 0.7790 ±0.0380 Δ at pub 0.0636 Δ today 0.1128
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #185 147 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #185 147 places worse
paper 0.7920 ±0.0320
paper 0.7920 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.0932
117
EGNN
actual #117 vs paper #117
0.8380 ±0.0460
actual #117 vs paper #117
paper 0.8380 ±0.0460

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8380 ±0.0460 Δ at pub 0.0171
129
UFG
actual #129 vs paper #228 99 places worse
0.8320 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #129 vs paper #228 99 places worse
paper 0.7530 ±0.0110
138
SAGE
0.8269
142
GRAND
actual #142 vs paper #146 4 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0710
actual #142 vs paper #146 4 places worse
paper 0.8220 ±0.0710

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8220 ±0.0710 Δ at pub 0.0004
147
EE-UFG
0.8220 ±0.0280
This paper
157
GraphSAGE
actual #157 vs paper #222 65 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0739
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #222 65 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7600 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.0596
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 0.6190 ±0.0310
paper 0.6190 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.2000
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #375 205 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #375 205 places worse
paper 0.6050 ±0.0530
paper 0.6050 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.1870 Δ today 0.2032
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #251 68 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #251 68 places worse
paper 0.7350 ±0.0630

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7350 ±0.0630 Δ at pub 0.0600
389
PairNorm
actual #389 vs paper #389
0.5892 ±0.0315
best reported
actual #389 vs paper #389
paper 0.5890 ±0.0320

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5890 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0002
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere