Node-wise Filtering in Graph Neural Networks: A Mixture of Experts Approach

Haoyu Han, Juanhui Li, Wei Huang, Xianfeng Tang, Hanqing Lu, Chen Luo, Hui Liu, Jiliang Tang

Main figure for Node-wise Filtering in Graph Neural Networks: A Mixture of Experts Approach

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have proven to be highly effective for node classification tasks across diverse graph structural patterns. Traditionally, GNNs employ a uniform global filter—typically a low-pass filter for homophilic graphs and a high-pass filter for heterophilic graphs. However, real-world graphs often exhibit a complex mix of homophilic and heterophilic patterns, rendering a single global filter approach suboptimal. In this work, we theoretically demonstrate that a global filter optimized for one pattern can adversely affect performance on nodes with differing patterns. To address this, we introduce a novel GNN framework Node-MoE that utilizes a mixture of experts to adaptively select the appropriate filters for different nodes. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of Node-MoE on both homophilic and heterophilic graphs.

Proposed method: Node-MoE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 8 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
22
ChebNetII
actual #22 vs paper #198 176 places worse
0.4175 ±0.0107
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #198 176 places worse
paper 0.3567 ±0.0119
paper 0.3567 ±0.0119 Δ at pub 0.0608 Δ today 0.0608
38
GCNII
actual #38 vs paper #255 217 places worse
0.4082 ±0.0179
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #255 217 places worse
paper 0.3436 ±0.0077
paper 0.3436 ±0.0077 Δ at pub 0.0425 Δ today 0.0646
41
APPNP
actual #41 vs paper #181 140 places worse
0.4046 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #181 140 places worse
paper 0.3605 ±0.0091
paper 0.3605 ±0.0091 Δ at pub 0.0441
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #179 137 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #179 137 places worse
paper 0.3617 ±0.0109
paper 0.3617 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.0409
53
GPR-GNN
actual #53 vs paper #284 231 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #284 231 places worse
paper 0.3312 ±0.0057
paper 0.3312 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0679 Δ today 0.0680
58
GloGNN
actual #58 vs paper #116 58 places worse
0.3959 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #116 58 places worse
paper 0.3735 ±0.0130
paper 0.3735 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0224
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #342 207 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #342 207 places worse
paper 0.3031 ±0.0098
paper 0.3031 ±0.0098 Δ at pub 0.0659
174
Node-MoE
0.3628 ±0.0101
This paper
180
LINKX
0.3610 ±0.0155
This paper
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #374 192 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #374 192 places worse
paper 0.2895 ±0.0108
paper 0.2895 ±0.0108 Δ at pub 0.0710
197
GMoE
0.3575 ±0.0131
This paper
238
WRGCN
0.3489 ±0.0111
This paper
439
LP
actual #439 vs paper #439
0.2462 ±0.0051
actual #439 vs paper #439
paper 0.2462 ±0.0051
paper 0.2462 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0693
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