ICML 2025

Aggregation Buffer: Revisiting DropEdge with a New Parameter Block

Dooho Lee, M. Kong, Sagad Hamid, Cheonwoo Lee, Jaemin Yoo

Main figure for Aggregation Buffer: Revisiting DropEdge with a New Parameter Block

Abstract

We revisit DropEdge, a data augmentation technique for GNNs which randomly removes edges to expose diverse graph structures during training. While being a promising approach to effectively reduce overfitting on specific connections in the graph, we observe that its potential performance gain in supervised learning tasks is significantly limited. To understand why, we provide a theoretical analysis showing that the limited performance of DropEdge comes from the fundamental limitation that exists in many GNN architectures. Based on this analysis, we propose Aggregation Buffer, a parameter block specifically designed to improve the robustness of GNNs by addressing the limitation of DropEdge. Our method is compatible with any GNN model, and shows consistent performance improvements on multiple datasets. Moreover, our method effectively addresses well-known problems such as degree bias or structural disparity as a unifying solution. Code and datasets are available at https://github.com/dooho00/agg-buffer.

Proposed method: Aggregation Buffer

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #240 198 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #240 198 places worse
paper 0.3486 ±0.0097
paper 0.3486 ±0.0097 Δ at pub 0.0540
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #254 202 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #254 202 places worse
paper 0.4019 ±0.0429
paper 0.4019 ±0.0429 Δ at pub 0.3014
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
169
MLP
actual #169 vs paper #270 101 places worse
0.5429
best reported
actual #169 vs paper #270 101 places worse
paper 0.3210 ±0.0310
paper 0.3210 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.2219
238
DropEdge
actual #238 vs paper #251 13 places worse
0.4310 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #238 vs paper #251 13 places worse
paper 0.4051 ±0.0338

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4051 ±0.0338 Δ at pub 0.0259
251
Aggregation Buffer
0.4096 ±0.0483
This paper
252
DropMessage
0.4048 ±0.0307
This paper
253
GraphPatcher
0.4035 ±0.0411
This paper
254
TuneUp
0.4024 ±0.0424
This paper
256
DropNode
0.3974 ±0.0279
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)