THeGCN: Temporal Heterophilic Graph Convolutional Network

Yuchen Yan, Yuzhong Chen, Huiyuan Chen, Xiaoting Li, Zhe Xu, Zhichen Zeng, Zhining Liu, Hanghang Tong

Main figure for THeGCN: Temporal Heterophilic Graph Convolutional Network

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have exhibited remarkable efficacy in diverse graph learning tasks, particularly on static homophilic graphs. Recent attention has pivoted towards more intricate structures, encompassing (1) static heterophilic graphs encountering the edge heterophily issue in the spatial domain and (2) event-based continuous graphs in the temporal domain. State-of-the-art (SOTA) has been concurrently addressing these two lines of work but tends to overlook the presence of heterophily in the temporal domain, constituting the temporal heterophily issue. Furthermore, we highlight that the edge heterophily issue and the temporal heterophily issue often co-exist in event-based continuous graphs, giving rise to the temporal edge heterophily challenge. To tackle this challenge, this paper first introduces the temporal edge heterophily measurement. Subsequently, we propose the emporal terophilic raph onvolutional etwork (THeGCN), an innovative model that incorporates the low/high-pass graph signal filtering technique to accurately capture both edge (spatial) heterophily and temporal heterophily. Specifically, the THeGCN\ model consists of two key components: a sampler and an aggregator. The sampler selects events relevant to a node at a given moment. Then, the aggregator executes message-passing, encoding temporal information, node attributes, and edge attributes into node embeddings. Extensive experiments conducted on 5 real-world datasets validate the efficacy of THeGCN.

Proposed method: THeGCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

Reddit

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAP-EDP
0.9870 ±0.0003
2
NE-ASGCN
0.9758 ±0.0027
3
HSGT
0.9730 ±0.0024
21
GraphSAGE
0.9653 ±0.0011
22
GAT
actual #22 vs paper #173 151 places worse
0.9650 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #173 151 places worse
paper 0.3027 ±0.0162
paper 0.3027 ±0.0162 Δ at pub 0.6623 Δ today 0.6623
26
GCN
actual #26 vs paper #174 148 places worse
0.9648
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #174 148 places worse
paper 0.2973 ±0.0308
paper 0.2973 ±0.0308 Δ at pub 0.6675
71
APPNP
actual #71 vs paper #173 102 places worse
0.9500
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #173 102 places worse
paper 0.3044 ±0.0178
paper 0.3044 ±0.0178 Δ at pub 0.6456
147
MLP
0.8240 ±0.0010
169
THeGCN
0.3319 ±0.0409
This paper
170
APAN
0.3195 ±0.0218
This paper
171
DySAT
0.3177 ±0.0196
This paper
172
GPRGNN
0.3124 ±0.0187
This paper
173
JODIE
0.3080 ±0.0199
This paper
174
FAGCN
0.3018 ±0.0235
This paper
175
TGAT
0.2929 ±0.0472
This paper
177
TGN
0.1578 ±0.0105
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)