Graph Neural Networks Need Cluster-Normalize-Activate Modules
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are non-Euclidean deep learning models for graph-structured data. Despite their successful and diverse applications, oversmoothing prohibits deep architectures due to node features converging to a single fixed point. This severely limits their potential to solve complex tasks. To counteract this tendency, we propose a plug-and-play module consisting of three steps: Cluster Normalize Activate (CNA). By applying CNA modules, GNNs search and form super nodes in each layer, which are normalized and activated individually. We demonstrate in node classification and property prediction tasks that CNA significantly improves the accuracy over the state-of-the-art. Particularly, CNA reaches 94.18\ It further benefits GNNs in regression tasks as well, reducing the mean squared error compared to all baselines. At the same time, GNNs with CNA require substantially fewer learnable parameters than competing architectures.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 10 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | This paper |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | This paper |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | This paper |
| 4 | GAT + CNA | 0.9294
±0.0071 | This paper |
| 20 | SSP | 0.9016
±0.0059 | Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 best reported | best at pub: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | This paper |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 17 | ACMII-Snowball-2 | 0.8207
±0.0104 | This paper |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 | |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 | |
| 65 | TransformerConv+CNA | 0.9016
±0.0013 | This paper |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphTARIF | 0.9703
±0.0019 | |
| 2 | GAT | 0.9669
±0.0014 | |
| 3 | GAT+T | 0.9660
±0.0007 | |
| 7 | SAGE | 0.9643
±0.0027 | |
| 15 | CNA (TransformerConv) | 0.9596
±0.0029 | This paper |
| 19 | CGT | 0.9580
±0.0080 best reported | best today: Revisiting the Necessity of Graph Learning and Common Graph Benchmarks (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 390 | MLP | 0.9128
±0.0063 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphTARIF | 0.9461
±0.0017 | |
| 2 | GCN | 0.9412
±0.0008 | |
| 3 | GAT | 0.9398
±0.0022 | |
| 8 | SAGE | 0.9351
±0.0006 | |
| 14 | CNA (TransformerConv) | 0.9268
±0.0027 | This paper |
| 33 | Exphormer | 0.9180
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Polynormer: Polynomial-Expressive Graph Transformer in Linear Time (ICLR 2024) best today: Graph Transductive Sharpening: Leveraging Unlabeled Predictions in Node Classification (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 320 | MLP | 0.8463 |
OGB
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GIANT-XRT | 0.7612
±0.0016 | |
| 2 | GEGCN | 0.7576
±0.0064 | |
| 3 | AGDN | 0.7522
±0.0007 | |
| 4 | GCN+CNA | 0.7464
±0.0013 | This paper |
| 23 | GCN | 0.7300
±0.0017 | |
| 107 | MLP | 0.5765
±0.0012 |
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9672
±0.0147 | |
| 2 | DoG | 0.9660
±0.0210 | |
| 3 | GPF-plus | 0.9583
±0.0419 | |
| 33 | 2-HiGCN | 0.9245
±0.0073 | This paper |
| 34 | MLP | 0.9230
±0.0070 | |
| 54 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9000
±0.0365 | This paper |
| 53 | GraphSAGE | 0.9000
±0.0365 | This paper |
| 189 | SAGE | 0.8269 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer) | 0.8693 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.8586
±0.0180 | This paper |
| 3 | GAT | 0.8560 | |
| 7 | Dir-GNN | 0.8048
±0.0146 | prev best: Scale-aware Message Passing For Graph Node Classification (2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 52 | GCN | 0.7033 | |
| 169 | MLP | 0.5429 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IBG-NN | 0.7763
±0.0179 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.7747
±0.0128 | This paper |
| 3 | DHGNN | 0.7684
±0.0161 | |
| 7 | Dir-GNN | 0.7560
±0.0190 best reported | best at pub: Scale-aware Message Passing For Graph Node Classification (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 46 | GCN | 0.6067 | |
| 172 | MLP | 0.3930
±0.0079 |
Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks
DBLP
Global leaderboard →Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HG-SCM | 0.9490
±0.0015 | |
| 2 | SeHGNN | 0.9489
±0.0018 | |
| 3 | AdvSynGNN | 0.9486
±0.0012 | |
| 36 | GCN | 0.8758
±0.0020 | |
| 38 | CNA | 0.8690
±0.0045 | This paper |
| 65 | MLP | 0.8118
±0.0020 |
