Directed Homophily-Aware Graph Neural Network

Aihu Zhang, Jiaxing Xu, Mengcheng Lan, Shili Xiang, Yiping Ke

Main figure for Directed Homophily-Aware Graph Neural Network

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved significant success in various learning tasks on graph-structured data. Nevertheless, most GNNs struggle to generalize to heterophilic neighborhoods. Additionally, many GNNs ignore the directional nature of real-world graphs, resulting in suboptimal performance on directed graphs with asymmetric structures. In this work, we propose Directed Homophily-aware Graph Neural Network (DHGNN), a novel framework that addresses these limitations by incorporating homophily-aware and direction-sensitive components. DHGNN employs a resettable gating mechanism to adaptively modulate message contributions based on homophily levels and informativeness, and a structure-aware noise-tolerant fusion module to effectively integrate node representations from the original and reverse directions. Extensive experiments on both homophilic and heterophilic directed graph datasets demonstrate that DHGNN outperforms state-of-the-art methods in node classification and link prediction. In particular, DHGNN improves over the best baseline by up to 15.07\

Proposed method: DHGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 17 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #223 220 places worse
0.8560
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #223 220 places worse
paper 0.4556 ±0.0316
paper 0.4556 ±0.0316 Δ at pub 0.4004
7
Dir-GNN
actual #7 vs paper #15 8 places worse
0.8048 ±0.0146
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #15 8 places worse
paper 0.7971 ±0.0126

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7971 ±0.0126 Δ at pub 0.0077
10
DHGNN
0.8011 ±0.0173
This paper
14
NDDGNN
0.7979 ±0.0104
This paper
25
FSGNN
0.7827 ±0.0128
This paper
28
ACM-GCN
actual #28 vs paper #28
0.7476 ±0.0220
actual #28 vs paper #28
paper 0.7476 ±0.0220
paper 0.7476 ±0.0220 Δ at pub 0.0576
44
G^2
0.7140 ±0.0238
This paper
45
GloGNN
actual #45 vs paper #147 102 places worse
0.7133 ±0.0242
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #147 102 places worse
paper 0.5788 ±0.0176
paper 0.5788 ±0.0176 Δ at pub 0.1333 Δ today 0.1345
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #95 43 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #95 43 places worse
paper 0.6482 ±0.0224
paper 0.6482 ±0.0224 Δ at pub 0.0551
64
LINKX
0.6842 ±0.0132
This paper
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #110 38 places worse
0.6748 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #110 38 places worse
paper 0.6285 ±0.0290
paper 0.6285 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0443 Δ today 0.0463
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
133
H2GCN
actual #133 vs paper #138 5 places worse
0.6030 ±0.0231
best reported
actual #133 vs paper #138 5 places worse
paper 0.5939 ±0.0098

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5939 ±0.0098 Δ at pub 0.0091
147
MagNet
actual #147 vs paper #147
0.5832 ±0.0287
actual #147 vs paper #147
paper 0.5832 ±0.0287

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5832 ±0.0287 Δ at pub 0.0012
169
MLP
actual #169 vs paper #216 47 places worse
0.5429
best reported
actual #169 vs paper #216 47 places worse
paper 0.4636 ±0.0257
paper 0.4636 ±0.0257 Δ at pub 0.0793
179
DI-GCN
0.5224 ±0.0365
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
This paper
7
Dir-GNN
actual #7 vs paper #8 1 place worse
0.7560 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #8 1 place worse
paper 0.7531 ±0.0192

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7531 ±0.0192 Δ at pub 0.0029
8
NDDGNN
0.7538 ±0.0195
This paper
11
FSGNN
actual #11 vs paper #11
0.7416
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #11
paper 0.7410 ±0.0189

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7410 ±0.0189 Δ at pub 0.0006
19
GloGNN
actual #19 vs paper #19
0.7121 ±0.0184
actual #19 vs paper #19
paper 0.7121 ±0.0184
paper 0.7121 ±0.0184 Δ at pub 0.1333
25
ACM-GCN
actual #25 vs paper #25
0.6740 ±0.0221
actual #25 vs paper #25
paper 0.6740 ±0.0221
31
G^2
0.6426 ±0.0238
This paper
39
H2GCN
actual #39 vs paper #184 145 places worse
0.6190 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #184 145 places worse
paper 0.3790 ±0.0002
paper 0.3790 ±0.0002 Δ at pub 0.2400
40
LINKX
0.6181 ±0.0180
This paper
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #77 31 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #77 31 places worse
paper 0.5343 ±0.0201
paper 0.5343 ±0.0201 Δ at pub 0.0724
67
GAT
actual #67 vs paper #173 106 places worse
0.5630 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #67 vs paper #173 106 places worse
paper 0.3914 ±0.0288
paper 0.3914 ±0.0288 Δ at pub 0.1716
76
GPRGNN
actual #76 vs paper #76
0.5435 ±0.0087
actual #76 vs paper #76
paper 0.5435 ±0.0087
paper 0.5435 ±0.0087 Δ at pub 0.0420
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
136
MagNet
actual #136 vs paper #173 37 places worse
0.4270 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #173 37 places worse
paper 0.3901 ±0.0193
172
MLP
actual #172 vs paper #228 56 places worse
0.3930 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #228 56 places worse
paper 0.3414 ±0.0194
paper 0.3414 ±0.0194 Δ at pub 0.0249 Δ today 0.0516
189
DI-GCN
0.3774 ±0.0154
This paper

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Dir-Poly
0.9451 ±0.0022
2
D-CDE
0.9387 ±0.0041
3
LargeScaleNet
0.9358 ±0.0024
14
NDDGNN
0.9176 ±0.0027
This paper
24
Dir-GNN
0.9123 ±0.0032
This paper
26
GraphSAGE
0.9106 ±0.0027
36
DHGNN
0.8905 ±0.0053
This paper
47
MagNet
0.8807 ±0.0027
This paper
77
GCN
actual #77 vs paper #113 36 places worse
0.8272 ±0.0082
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #113 36 places worse
paper 0.7369 ±0.0074
paper 0.7369 ±0.0074 Δ at pub 0.0903
80
G^2
0.8216 ±0.0078
This paper
83
GAT
actual #83 vs paper #121 38 places worse
0.8145 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #121 38 places worse
paper 0.7116 ±0.0063
paper 0.7116 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.0971 Δ today 0.1029
92
FSGNN
0.7992 ±0.0056
This paper
115
ACM-GCN
actual #115 vs paper #124 9 places worse
0.7189 ±0.0061
best reported
actual #115 vs paper #124 9 places worse
paper 0.6966 ±0.0062
129
H2GCN
actual #129 vs paper #164 35 places worse
0.6809 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #129 vs paper #164 35 places worse
paper 0.6011 ±0.0052
paper 0.6011 ±0.0052 Δ at pub 0.0798 Δ today 0.0798
133
GPRGNN
actual #133 vs paper #144 11 places worse
0.6704 ±0.0092
best reported
actual #133 vs paper #144 11 places worse
paper 0.6485 ±0.0027
paper 0.6485 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0219
135
MLP
actual #135 vs paper #141 6 places worse
0.6665 ±0.0047
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #141 6 places worse
paper 0.6576 ±0.0042
paper 0.6576 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0089
154
GloGNN
actual #154 vs paper #167 13 places worse
0.6385 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #154 vs paper #167 13 places worse
paper 0.5963 ±0.0069
paper 0.5963 ±0.0069 Δ at pub 0.0422 Δ today 0.0422
168
LINKX
actual #168 vs paper #202 34 places worse
0.5914 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #168 vs paper #202 34 places worse
paper 0.3755 ±0.0036
paper 0.3755 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.2159
183
DI-GCN
0.5271 ±0.0032
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere