KDD 2024

The Heterophilic Snowflake Hypothesis: Training and Empowering GNNs for Heterophilic Graphs

Kun Wang, Guibin Zhang, Xinnan Zhang, Junfeng Fang, Xun Wu, Guohao Li, Shirui Pan, Wei Huang, Yuxuan Liang

Main figure for The Heterophilic Snowflake Hypothesis: Training and Empowering GNNs for Heterophilic Graphs

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have become pivotal tools for a range of graph-based learning tasks. Notably, most current GNN architectures operate under the assumption of homophily, whether explicitly or implicitly. While this underlying assumption is frequently adopted, it is not universally applicable, which can result in potential shortcomings in learning effectiveness. In this paper, for the first time, we transfer the prevailing concept of ``one node one receptive field" to the heterophilic graph. By constructing a proxy label predictor, we enable each node to possess a latent prediction distribution, which assists connected nodes in determining whether they should aggregate their associated neighbors. Ultimately, every node can have its own unique aggregation hop and pattern, much like each snowflake is unique and possesses its own characteristics. Based on observations, we innovatively introduce the Heterophily Snowflake Hypothesis and provide an effective solution to guide and facilitate research on heterophilic graphs and beyond. We conduct comprehensive experiments including (1) main results on 10 graphs with varying heterophily ratios across 10 backbones; (2) scalability on various deep GNN backbones (SGC, JKNet, etc.) across various large number of layers (2,4,6,8,16,32 layers); (3) comparison with conventional snowflake hypothesis; (4) efficiency comparison with existing graph pruning algorithms. Our observations show that our framework acts as a versatile operator for diverse tasks. It can be integrated into various GNN frameworks, boosting performance in-depth and offering an explainable approach to choosing the optimal network depth. The source code is available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets SOTA at publication on 1 12 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
6
Mixhop/ +Hetero-S
0.9486
This paper
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
35
H2GCN/ +Hetero-S
0.9228
This paper
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
262
GCN/ +Hetero-S
0.7895
This paper
266
GIN/ +Hetero-S
0.7885
This paper
423
Geom-GCN/ +Hetero-S
0.6698
This paper
435
GAT/ +Hetero-S
0.6579
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 #249 214 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0396
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #249 214 places worse
paper 0.7368
paper 0.7368 Δ at pub 0.1058 Δ today 0.1550
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #426 358 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #426 358 places worse
paper 0.5576
89
GPNN
actual #89 vs paper #489 400 places worse
0.8514 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #489 400 places worse
paper 0.5000
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.5000 Δ at pub 0.3514
138
SAGE
0.8269
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #558 400 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #558 400 places worse
paper 0.3684
paper 0.3684 Δ at pub 0.4506
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #558 388 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #558 388 places worse
paper 0.3684
paper 0.3684 Δ at pub 0.4331 Δ today 0.4398
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #249 66 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #249 66 places worse
paper 0.7368

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7368 Δ at pub 0.0582
201
GIN
actual #201 vs paper #564 363 places worse
0.7800 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #564 363 places worse
paper 0.3421
241
JKNet
actual #241 vs paper #564 323 places worse
0.7443 ±0.0830
best reported
actual #241 vs paper #564 323 places worse
paper 0.3421
275
MGNN/ +Hetero-S
0.7122
This paper
287
GCNII/ +Hetero-S
0.6972
This paper
291
Mixhop/ +Hetero-S
0.6899
This paper
326
H2GCN/ +Hetero-S
0.6545
This paper
342
Geom-GCN
actual #342 vs paper #372 30 places worse
0.6412
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #372 30 places worse
paper 0.6054
paper 0.6054 Δ at pub 0.0358
351
GPNN/ +Hetero-S
0.6324
This paper
428
MGNN
0.5526
This paper
489
JKNet/ +Hetero-S
0.5007
This paper
497
Geom-GCN/ +Hetero-S
0.4899
This paper
511
GCN/ +Hetero-S
0.4737
This paper
554
GAT/ +Hetero-S
0.3976
This paper
558
GIN/ +Hetero-S
0.3842
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
This paper
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #3
0.8560
actual #3 vs paper #3
paper 0.8560
paper 0.8560 Δ at pub 0.1910
32
JKNet
actual #32 vs paper #32
0.7419
actual #32 vs paper #32
paper 0.7419
paper 0.7419 Δ at pub 0.1127
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #71 19 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #71 19 places worse
paper 0.6776
paper 0.6776 Δ at pub 0.0257
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
163
GPNN
0.5529
This paper
169
MLP
0.5429
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
0.9010 ±0.0350
22
H2GCN
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
0.8790 ±0.0420
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
paper 0.7642
paper 0.7642 Δ at pub 0.1123 Δ today 0.1148
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
52
Mixhop / +snowblue
0.8431
This paper
53
GAT
actual #53 vs paper #196 143 places worse
0.8430 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #196 143 places worse
paper 0.5294
paper 0.5294 Δ at pub 0.3136
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #178 115 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #178 115 places worse
paper 0.5686
paper 0.5686 Δ at pub 0.2624
69
GraphSAGE
0.8118 ±0.0556
76
MixHop
actual #76 vs paper #76
0.8039
actual #76 vs paper #76
paper 0.8039

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8039 Δ at pub 0.0451
86
GIN
actual #86 vs paper #159 73 places worse
0.7900 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #86 vs paper #159 73 places worse
paper 0.6275
87
H2GCN / +snowblue
0.7862
This paper
139
Geom-GCN
actual #139 vs paper #149 10 places worse
0.6757
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #149 10 places worse
paper 0.6451
paper 0.6451 Δ at pub 0.0306
141
Geom-GCN / +snowblue
0.6692
This paper
158
GIN / +snowblue
0.6284
This paper
167
GCN / +snowblue
0.6078
This paper
179
GAT / +snowblue
0.5686
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