Provable Filter for Real-world Graph Clustering

Xuanting Xie, Erlin Pan, Zhao Kang, Wenyu Chen, Bingheng Li

Main figure for Provable Filter for Real-world Graph Clustering

Abstract

Graph clustering, an important unsupervised problem, has been shown to be more resistant to advances in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Most existing methods focus on homophilic graphs and ignore heterophily. This significantly limits their applicability, since real-world graphs exhibit a structural disparity and cannot simply be classified as homophily and heterophily. To fill this gap, we provide a principled way to handle practical graphs. Interestingly, we find that most homophilic and heterophilic edges can be correctly identified on the basis of neighbor information. Motivated by it, we construct two graphs that are highly homophilic and heterophilic, respectively. They are used to build low-pass and high-pass filters to capture holistic information. We make the first attempt to provide a theoretical analysis connecting the relationship between filters and clustering performance. Important features are further enhanced by the squeeze-and-excitation block. We validate our approach through extensive experiments on both homophilic and heterophilic graphs, as well as a co-saliency detection application. Empirical results demonstrate the superiority of our method compared to state-of-the-art clustering methods. In particular, our method achieves an average accuracy improvement of 1.82\

Proposed method: two unsupervised strategies

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets

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

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
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
203
DGCN
actual #203 vs paper #357 154 places worse
0.7790 ±0.0310
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #357 154 places worse
paper 0.6229 ±0.0085
320
two unsupervised strategies
0.6612 ±0.0075
This paper
391
GMM
0.5886
This paper
400
RWR
0.5829
This paper
405
SELENE
0.5796
This paper
411
RGSL
0.5744
This paper
424
ARVGA
0.5623
This paper
471
CDC
0.5140
This paper
472
DCRN
0.5132
This paper
481
MSGA
0.5077
This paper
530
CGC
actual #530 vs paper #530
0.4462
actual #530 vs paper #530
paper 0.4462
paper 0.4462 Δ at pub 0.0002
534
FGC
0.4410
This paper
546
DAEGC
0.4256
This paper

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Dir-Poly
0.9451 ±0.0022
2
D-CDE
0.9387 ±0.0041
3
LargeScaleNet
0.9358 ±0.0024
26
GraphSAGE
0.9106 ±0.0027
135
MLP
0.6665 ±0.0047
201
two unsupervised strategies
0.3880 ±0.0087
This paper
208
RGSL
0.3457
This paper
211
DCRN
0.3257
This paper
214
CDC
0.3102
This paper
215
CGC
0.3016
This paper
223
DAEGC
0.2123
This paper
225
MSGA
0.1931
This paper
227
FGC
0.1446
This paper

Hypergraph Benchmarks

AMAP

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 13 values on ACC and 11 values on NMI .

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultACC ↑NMI ↑Paper
1
DCRN
—
0.7994
0.7370
Accuracy —
NMI 0.7370
This paper
2
AMLP
0.7980
—
—
3
two unsupervised strategies
—
0.7850 ± 0.0045
0.7081 ± 0.0074
Accuracy —
NMI 0.7081 ± 0.0074
This paper
4
SCGC
—
0.7748 ± 0.0037
0.6767 ± 0.0088
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6767 ± 0.0088
This paper
5
CCGC
—
0.7725 ± 0.0041
0.6744 ± 0.0048
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6744 ± 0.0048
This paper
6
DFCN
—
0.7688
0.6921
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6921
This paper
8
DGCN
—
0.7607 ± 0.0135
0.6613 ± 0.0192
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6613 ± 0.0192
This paper
9
AGE
—
0.7598
—
Accuracy —
NMI —
This paper
10
CGC
—
0.7302
0.6326
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6326
This paper
11
MCGC
—
0.7164
0.6154
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6154
This paper
12
FGC
—
0.7104
—
Accuracy —
NMI —
This paper
13
SSGC
—
0.6023
0.6037
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6037
This paper
14
SDCN
—
0.5344
0.4485
Accuracy —
NMI 0.4485
This paper
15
MVGRL
—
0.4519
0.3689
Accuracy —
NMI 0.3689
This paper

UAT

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is F1. The paper reports 0 values on F1 , 12 values on ACC and 12 values on NMI .

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑ defaultACC ↑NMI ↑Paper
1
AGCN
0.6084
—
—
2
the idea
0.5840
—
—
3
two unsupervised strategies
—
0.5681 ± 0.0034
0.2933 ± 0.0042
F1 —
NMI 0.2933 ± 0.0042
This paper
4
SCGC
—
0.5658 ± 0.0162
0.2807 ± 0.0071
F1 —
NMI 0.2807 ± 0.0071
This paper
5
CCGC
—
0.5634 ± 0.0111
0.2815 ± 0.0192
F1 —
NMI 0.2815 ± 0.0192
This paper
6
FGC
—
0.5303
0.2706
F1 —
NMI 0.2706
This paper
7
AGE
—
0.5237
0.2364
F1 —
NMI 0.2364
This paper
8
DGCN
—
0.5227 ± 0.0045
0.2354 ± 0.0038
F1 —
NMI 0.2354 ± 0.0038
This paper
9
SDCN
—
0.5225
0.2161
F1 —
NMI 0.2161
This paper
11
CGC
—
0.4958
0.1749
F1 —
NMI 0.1749
This paper
12
MVGRL
—
0.4416
0.2153
F1 —
NMI 0.2153
This paper
13
MCGC
—
0.4193
0.1664
F1 —
NMI 0.1664
This paper
14
SSGC
—
0.3674
0.0804
F1 —
NMI 0.0804
This paper
15
DFCN
—
0.3361
0.2649
F1 —
NMI 0.2649
This paper
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