Redesigning graph filter-based GNNs to relax the homophily assumption This work was supported in part by the Spanish AEI Grants PID2022-136887NB-I00, PID2023-149457OB-I00, FPU20/05554, the Community of Madrid (Madrid ELLIS Unit), and the NSF under award CCF-2340481. Research was sponsored by the Army Research Office and was accomplished under Grant Number W911NF-17-S-0002. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Army or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein. Emails: samuel.rey.escudero@urjc.es, nav@rice.edu, victor.tenorio@urjc.es, segarra@rice.edu, antonio.garcia.marques@urjc.es

Samuel Rey, Madeline Navarro, Victor M. Tenorio, Santiago Segarra, Antonio G. Marques

Main figure for Redesigning graph filter-based GNNs to relax the homophily assumption This work was supported in part by the Spanish AEI Grants PID2022-136887NB-I00, PID2023-149457OB-I00, FPU20/05554, the Community of Madrid (Madrid ELLIS Unit), and the NSF under award CCF-2340481. Research was sponsored by the Army Research Office and was accomplished under Grant Number W911NF-17-S-0002. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Army or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein. Emails: samuel.rey.escudero@urjc.es, nav@rice.edu, victor.tenorio@urjc.es, segarra@rice.edu, antonio.garcia.marques@urjc.es

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have become a workhorse approach for learning from data defined over irregular domains, typically by implicitly assuming that the data structure is represented by a homophilic graph. However, recent works have revealed that many relevant applications involve heterophilic data where the performance of GNNs can be notably compromised. To address this challenge, we present a simple yet effective architecture designed to mitigate the limitations of the homophily assumption. The proposed architecture reinterprets the role of graph filters in convolutional GNNs, resulting in a more general architecture while incorporating a stronger inductive bias than GNNs based on filter banks. The proposed convolutional layer enhances the expressive capacity of the architecture enabling it to learn from both homophilic and heterophilic data and preventing the issue of oversmoothing. From a theoretical standpoint, we show that the proposed architecture is permutation equivariant. Finally, we show that the proposed GNNs compares favorably relative to several state-of-the-art baselines in both homophilic and heterophilic datasets, showcasing its promising potential.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 8 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
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #216 182 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #216 182 places worse
paper 0.8140 ±0.0570
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
131
AAGCN-N_H
0.8570 ±0.0510
This paper
133
AAGCN-N_A
0.8550 ±0.0510
This paper
172
AAGCN
0.8380 ±0.0550
This paper
189
SAGE
actual #189 vs paper #268 79 places worse
0.8269
best reported
actual #189 vs paper #268 79 places worse
paper 0.7840 ±0.0420

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7840 ±0.0420 Δ today 0.0429
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #447 236 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #447 236 places worse
paper 0.6430 ±0.0630
paper 0.6430 ±0.0630 Δ at pub 0.1570 Δ today 0.1732
248
FB-GCN-N_A
0.7970 ±0.0220
This paper
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #546 289 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #546 289 places worse
paper 0.5760 ±0.0480
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5760 ±0.0480 Δ at pub 0.2080 Δ today 0.2173
308
FB-GCN
actual #308 vs paper #308
0.7570 ±0.0480
actual #308 vs paper #308
paper 0.7570 ±0.0480

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7570 ±0.0480 Δ at pub 0.1354
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #440 114 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #440 114 places worse
paper 0.6490 ±0.0550
524
GCN-N_A
0.5920 ±0.0550
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
actual #24 vs paper #225 201 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #225 201 places worse
paper 0.7540 ±0.0560
paper 0.7540 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.1596
138
SAGE
actual #138 vs paper #334 196 places worse
0.6460 ±0.0630
actual #138 vs paper #334 196 places worse
paper 0.6460 ±0.0630

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6460 ±0.0630 Δ at pub 0.1060 Δ today 0.1809
157
GraphSAGE
0.8196 ±0.0739
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #428 270 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #428 270 places worse
paper 0.5490 ±0.0470
paper 0.5490 ±0.0470 Δ at pub 0.2700
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #555 385 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #555 385 places worse
paper 0.3890 ±0.0950
paper 0.3890 ±0.0950 Δ at pub 0.4125 Δ today 0.4192
201
GIN
actual #201 vs paper #531 330 places worse
0.7800 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #531 330 places worse
paper 0.4460 ±0.0850
207
AAGCN
0.7760 ±0.0680
This paper
214
AAGCN-N_H
0.7730 ±0.0440
This paper
222
AAGCN-N_A
0.7620 ±0.0340
This paper
232
FB-GCN-N_A
0.7510 ±0.0430
This paper
245
FB-GCN
actual #245 vs paper #245
0.7430 ±0.0440
actual #245 vs paper #245
paper 0.7430 ±0.0440

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7430 ±0.0440 Δ at pub 0.1214
550
GCN-N_A
0.4110 ±0.0510
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere