On the Cross-type Homophily of Heterogeneous Graphs: Understanding and Unleashing

Zhen Tao, Ziyue Qiao, Chaoqi Chen, Zhengyi Yang, Lun Du, Qingqiang Sun

Main figure for On the Cross-type Homophily of Heterogeneous Graphs: Understanding and Unleashing

Abstract

Homophily, the tendency of similar nodes to connect, is a fundamental phenomenon in network science and a critical factor in the performance of graph neural networks (GNNs). While existing studies primarily explore homophily in homogeneous graphs, where nodes share the same type, real-world networks are often more accurately modeled as heterogeneous graphs (HGs) with diverse node types and intricate cross-type interactions. This structural diversity complicates the analysis of homophily, as traditional homophily metrics fail to account for distinct label spaces across node types. To address this limitation, we introduce the Cross-Type Homophily Ratio (CHR), a novel metric that quantifies homophily based on the similarity of target information across different node types. Additionally, we propose Cross-Type Homophily-guided Graph Editing (CTHGE), a novel method for improving heterogeneous graph neural networks (HGNNs) performance by optimizing cross-type connectivity using Cross-Type Homophily Ratio. Extensive experiments on five HG datasets with nine HGNNs validate the effectiveness of CTHGE, which delivers a maximum relative performance improvement of over 25\

Proposed method: CTHGE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Heterophilic Graphs

Actor

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 10 values on Macro-F1 and 10 values on Micro-F1 .

Sorted by Macro-F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultMacro-F1 ↑Micro-F1 ↑Paper
1
CTHGE
—
0.8258 ± 0.0039
0.8248 ± 0.0092
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.8248 ± 0.0092
This paper
2
HGT HDHGR
0.7725 ± 0.0053
—
—
Accuracy 0.7725 ± 0.0053
Micro-F1 —
3
PSHGCN
—
0.7620 ± 0.0128
0.6716 ± 0.0112
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.6716 ± 0.0112
This paper
8
SHGN
—
0.7063 ± 0.0093
0.7895 ± 0.0118
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.7895 ± 0.0118
This paper
9
HAN
—
0.6943 ± 0.0022
0.5654 ± 0.0094
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.5654 ± 0.0094
This paper
12
RGCN
—
0.6562 ± 0.0134
0.7831 ± 0.0101
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.7831 ± 0.0101
This paper
23
H2GCN
—
0.5142 ± 0.0121
0.6313 ± 0.0134
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.6313 ± 0.0134
This paper
24
LINKX
—
0.5060 ± 0.0102
0.5583 ± 0.0112
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.5583 ± 0.0112
This paper
27
GCN
—
0.4878 ± 0.0130
0.6185 ± 0.0141
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.6185 ± 0.0141
This paper
28
HINormer
—
0.4772 ± 0.0134
0.6305 ± 0.0059
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.6305 ± 0.0059
This paper
30
GAT
—
0.4565 ± 0.0103
0.6126 ± 0.0102
Accuracy —
Micro-F1 0.6126 ± 0.0102
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)