ICML 2024

Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks

Junfu Wang, Yuanfang Guo, Liang Yang, Yunhong Wang

Main figure for Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graphs with heterophily have been regarded as challenging scenarios for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), where nodes are connected with dissimilar neighbors through various patterns. In this paper, we present theoretical understandings of heterophily for GNNs by incorporating the graph convolution (GC) operations into fully connected networks via the proposed Heterophilous Stochastic Block Models (HSBM), a general random graph model that can accommodate diverse heterophily patterns. Our theoretical investigation comprehensively analyze the impact of heterophily from three critical aspects. Firstly, for the impact of different heterophily patterns, we show that the separability gains are determined by two factors, i.e., the Euclidean distance of the neighborhood distributions and $ [deg]$, where $ [deg]$ is the averaged node degree. Secondly, we show that the neighborhood inconsistency has a detrimental impact on separability, which is similar to degrading $ [deg]$ by a specific factor. Finally, for the impact of stacking multiple layers, we show that the separability gains are determined by the normalized distance of the $l$-powered neighborhood distributions, indicating that nodes still possess separability in various regimes, even when over-smoothing occurs. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world data verify the effectiveness of our theory.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.9004
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.9004

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9004 Δ at pub 0.0200
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #724
0.7768
actual #724 vs paper #724
paper 0.7768

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7768 Δ at pub 0.0293

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #234 192 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #234 192 places worse
paper 0.3500
paper 0.3500 Δ at pub 0.0526
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #340 205 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #340 205 places worse
paper 0.3033
paper 0.3033 Δ at pub 0.0657
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #52
0.7033
actual #52 vs paper #52
paper 0.7033

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7033 Δ at pub 0.0237
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
169
MLP
actual #169 vs paper #169
0.5429
actual #169 vs paper #169
paper 0.5429
paper 0.5429 Δ at pub 0.0609
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.6067
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.6067
paper 0.6067 Δ at pub 0.0497
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
172
MLP
actual #172 vs paper #200 28 places worse
0.3663
actual #172 vs paper #200 28 places worse
paper 0.3663

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
UniGAP
0.6375 ±0.0110
2
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.5961 ±0.0100
3
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.5897 ±0.0150
12
SAGE
0.5569 ±0.0023
24
GCN
actual #24 vs paper #121 97 places worse
0.5411 ±0.0034
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #121 97 places worse
paper 0.4801
84
MLP
actual #84 vs paper #84
0.5058
actual #84 vs paper #84
paper 0.5058
prev best: Evolving Computation Graphs (ICML 2023)
paper 0.5058 Δ at pub 0.0468

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LargeScaleNet
0.6582 ±0.0036
2
S² DirGCN
0.6495 ±0.0033
3
FaberNet
0.6462 ±0.0101
31
GCN
actual #31 vs paper #39 8 places worse
0.4602 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #39 8 places worse
paper 0.4244
paper 0.4244 Δ at pub 0.0358 Δ today 0.0358
56
MLP
actual #56 vs paper #56
0.3670 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #56
paper 0.3640

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3640 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0030
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
FaberNet
0.7510 ±0.0003
2
LargeScaleNet
0.7505 ±0.0005
3
DirGNN
0.7395 ±0.0005
16
GCN
actual #16 vs paper #30 14 places worse
0.5102 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #30 14 places worse
paper 0.3442
paper 0.3442 Δ at pub 0.1128 Δ today 0.1660
32
MLP
actual #32 vs paper #32
0.3150
actual #32 vs paper #32
paper 0.3150
paper 0.3150 Δ at pub 0.0016
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere