UniGAP: A Universal and Adaptive Graph Upsampling Approach to Mitigate Over-Smoothing in Node Classification Tasks

Xiaotang Wang, Yun Zhu, Haizhou Shi, Yongchao Liu, Chuntao Hong

Main figure for UniGAP: A Universal and Adaptive Graph Upsampling Approach to Mitigate Over-Smoothing in Node Classification Tasks

Abstract

In the graph domain, deep graph networks based on Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) or Graph Transformers often cause over-smoothing of node features, limiting their expressive capacity. Many upsampling techniques involving node and edge manipulation have been proposed to mitigate this issue. However, these methods are often heuristic, resulting in extensive manual labor and suboptimal performance and lacking a universal integration strategy. In this study, we introduce UniGAP, a versal and adaptive r ph u sampling framework to mitigate over-smoothing in node classification tasks. Specifically, we design an adaptive graph upsampler based on condensed trajectory features, serving as a plug-in component for existing GNNs to mitigate the over-smoothing problem and enhance performance. Moreover, UniGAP serves as a representation-based and fully differentiable framework to inspire further exploration of graph upsampling methods. Through extensive experiments, UniGAP demonstrates significant improvements over heuristic data augmentation methods in various datasets and metrics. We analyze how graph structure evolves with UniGAP, identifying key bottlenecks where over-smoothing occurs, and providing insights into how UniGAP addresses this issue. Lastly, we show the potential of combining UniGAP with large language models (LLMs) to further improve downstream performance. Our code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/UniGAP.

Proposed method: UniGAP

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
0.9302 ±0.0011
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
69
GraphSAGE
actual #69 vs paper #128 59 places worse
0.7913 ±0.0050
actual #69 vs paper #128 59 places worse
paper 0.7913 ±0.0050
82
UniGAP
0.8057 ±0.0040
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
21
UniGAP
0.6967 ±0.0160
This paper
39
H2GCN
actual #39 vs paper #128 89 places worse
0.4362 ±0.0230
actual #39 vs paper #128 89 places worse
paper 0.4362 ±0.0230

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4362 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0287 Δ today 0.1828
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #110 64 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #110 64 places worse
paper 0.4587 ±0.0230
paper 0.4587 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.1480
48
GCN + HalfHop
0.6024 ±0.0240
This paper
49
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.6024 ±0.0240
This paper
71
GraphSAGE + AdaEdge
0.5529 ±0.0120
This paper
73
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.5483 ±0.0270
This paper
74
GCN +AdaEdge
0.5479 ±0.0180
This paper
75
H2GCN + AdaEdge
0.5479 ±0.0180
This paper
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
128
GraphSAGE
actual #128 vs paper #128
0.4378 ±0.0190
actual #128 vs paper #128
paper 0.4378 ±0.0190

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4378 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0217
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
UniGAP
0.6375 ±0.0110
This paper
2
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.5961 ±0.0100
This paper
3
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.5897 ±0.0150
This paper
4
GraphSAGE + AdaEdge
0.5884 ±0.0130
This paper
5
H2GCN + AdaEdge
0.5877 ±0.0120
This paper
6
GCN +AdaEdge
0.5692 ±0.0110
This paper
7
H2GCN
actual #7 vs paper #7
0.5681 ±0.0090
actual #7 vs paper #7
paper 0.5681 ±0.0090
paper 0.5681 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.1545
12
SAGE
0.5569 ±0.0023
15
GraphSAGE
actual #15 vs paper #15
0.5540 ±0.0020
actual #15 vs paper #15
paper 0.5540 ±0.0020
paper 0.5540 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0177
16
GCN + HalfHop
0.5519 ±0.0160
This paper
24
GCN
actual #24 vs paper #27 3 places worse
0.5380 ±0.0060
actual #24 vs paper #27 3 places worse
paper 0.5380 ±0.0060
paper 0.5380 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0510
84
MLP
0.5058
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
NID_GAT
0.9703 ±0.0002
2
NID_GCN
0.9685 ±0.0010
3
UniGAP
0.8421 ±0.0080
This paper
4
H2GCN + AdaEdge
0.8134 ±0.0070
This paper
5
GCN +AdaEdge
0.8085 ±0.0080
This paper
8
GraphSAGE + AdaEdge
0.8017 ±0.0100
This paper
12
GCN + HalfHop
0.7960 ±0.0110
This paper
13
H2GCN
actual #13 vs paper #13
0.7928 ±0.0080
actual #13 vs paper #13
paper 0.7928 ±0.0080
prev best: Evolving Computation Graphs (ICML 2023)
paper 0.7928 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.1569
16
GCN
actual #16 vs paper #16
0.7902 ±0.0060
actual #16 vs paper #16
paper 0.7902 ±0.0060
paper 0.7902 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0162
18
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.7896 ±0.0190
This paper
25
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.7862 ±0.0170
This paper
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.7721 ±0.0130
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.7721 ±0.0130

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7721 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0077
58
SAGE
0.7644 ±0.0062
96
MLP
0.7082 ±0.0010
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere