NeurIPS 2024

On the Impact of Feature Heterophily on Link Prediction with Graph Neural Networks

Jiong Zhu, Gao Li, Yao-An Yang, Jinghua Zhu, Xuehao Cui, Danai Koutra

Main figure for On the Impact of Feature Heterophily on Link Prediction with Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Heterophily, or the tendency of connected nodes in networks to have different class labels or dissimilar features, has been identified as challenging for many Graph Neural Network (GNN) models. While the challenges of applying GNNs for node classification when class labels display strong heterophily are well understood, it is unclear how heterophily affects GNN performance in other important graph learning tasks where class labels are not available. In this work, we focus on the link prediction task and systematically analyze the impact of heterophily in node features on GNN performance. Theoretically, we first introduce formal definitions of homophilic and heterophilic link prediction tasks, and present a theoretical framework that highlights the different optimizations needed for the respective tasks. We then analyze how different link prediction encoders and decoders adapt to varying levels of feature homophily and introduce designs for improved performance. Our empirical analysis on a variety of synthetic and real-world datasets confirms our theoretical insights and highlights the importance of adopting learnable decoders and GNN encoders with ego- and neighbor-embedding separation in message passing for link prediction tasks beyond homophily.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelHits@50 ↑Paper
1
PROXI
0.7650 ±0.0027
2
OGB Leader
0.7129 ±0.0018
3
GIDN
0.7096 ±0.0055
8
BUDDY-SIGN
0.6664 ±0.0064
This paper
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #9
0.6621 ±0.0033
actual #9 vs paper #9
paper 0.6621 ±0.0033
paper 0.6621 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0216
12
BUDDY-NoFeat
0.6606 ±0.0022
This paper
23
AA
0.6435
This paper
26
RA
0.6400
This paper
27
CN
actual #27 vs paper #33 6 places worse
0.6137
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #33 6 places worse
paper 0.5644
28
SAGE
0.5944 ±0.0137
79
SAGE+MLP
0.4864 ±0.0039
This paper
94
MLP
0.4438 ±0.0347
101
GPRGNN
0.3952 ±0.0128
This paper
117
NoGNN
0.0607 ±0.0018
This paper
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
10
SIGN
0.8753 ±0.0012
This paper
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #12
0.8705 ±0.0004
actual #12 vs paper #12
paper 0.8705 ±0.0004
paper 0.8705 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0226
24
GPRGNN
0.8455 ±0.0355
This paper
26
SAGE+MLP
0.8367 ±0.0007
This paper
27
NoFeat
0.8336 ±0.0014
This paper
30
SAGE
0.8292 ±0.0022
51
RA
actual #51 vs paper #61 10 places worse
0.7604
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #61 10 places worse
paper 0.5198
52
AA
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
0.7596
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
paper 0.5189
54
CN
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
0.7430
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
paper 0.5147
71
MLP
0.3917 ±0.0044
72
NoGNN
0.2764 ±0.0021
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere