TMLR 2025

Bayesian Neighborhood Adaptation for Graph Neural Networks

Paribesh Regmi, Rui Li, KC Kishan

Main figure for Bayesian Neighborhood Adaptation for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

The neighborhood scope (i.e., number of hops) where graph neural networks (GNNs) aggregate information to characterize a node's statistical property is critical to GNNs' performance. Two-stage approaches, training and validating GNNs for every pre-specified neighborhood scope to search for the best setting, is a time-consuming task and tends to be biased due to the search space design. How to adaptively determine proper neighborhood scopes for the aggregation process for both homophilic and heterophilic graphs remains largely unexplored. We thus propose to model the GNNs' message-passing behavior on a graph as a stochastic process by treating the number of hops as a beta process. This Bayesian framework allows us to infer the most plausible neighborhood scope for message aggregation simultaneously with the optimization of GNN parameters. Our theoretical analysis shows that the scope inference improves the expressivity of a GNN. Experiments on benchmark homophilic and heterophilic datasets show that the proposed method is compatible with state-of-the-art GNN variants, achieving competitive or superior performance on the node classification task, and providing well-calibrated predictions. Implementation is available at:

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
5
ACM-GCN
actual #5 vs paper #42 37 places worse
0.9557 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #42 37 places worse
paper 0.9180 ±0.0421

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9180 ±0.0421 Δ at pub 0.0330 Δ today 0.0377
12
general Bayesian inference strategy + GCNII
0.9410 ±0.0353
This paper
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
70
GCNII
actual #70 vs paper #301 231 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0443
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #301 231 places worse
paper 0.7607 ±0.0535
paper 0.7607 ±0.0535 Δ at pub 0.1311
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #265 54 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #265 54 places worse
paper 0.7887 ±0.0086

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7887 ±0.0086 Δ at pub 0.0275
230
ResGCN
0.8082 ±0.0360
This paper
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #349 92 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #349 92 places worse
paper 0.7311 ±0.2246
best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7311 ±0.2246 Δ at pub 0.0622
268
general Bayesian inference strategy + ResGCN
0.7852 ±0.0624
This paper
392
JKNet
actual #392 vs paper #392
0.7000 ±0.0549
actual #392 vs paper #392
paper 0.7000 ±0.0549

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7000 ±0.0549 Δ at pub 0.0590
466
BBGDC
0.6262 ±0.0808
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
actual #2 vs paper #13 11 places worse
0.9480 ±0.0380
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #13 11 places worse
paper 0.9246 ±0.0234
best at pub: Heterophily-informed Message Passing (TMLR 2025)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9246 ±0.0234 Δ at pub 0.0234
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
7
general Bayesian inference strategy + GCNII
0.9361 ±0.0213
This paper
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
35
GCNII
actual #35 vs paper #43 8 places worse
0.8770 ±0.0515
actual #35 vs paper #43 8 places worse
paper 0.8770 ±0.0515

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8770 ±0.0515 Δ at pub 0.0344
138
SAGE
0.8269
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #222 64 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #222 64 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0101
paper 0.7600 ±0.0101 Δ at pub 0.0590
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #170
0.8082 ±0.0360
actual #170 vs paper #170
paper 0.8082 ±0.0360

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8082 ±0.0360 Δ at pub 0.0067
171
ResGCN
0.8082 ±0.0360
This paper
184
BBGDC
0.7934 ±0.0550
This paper
206
general Bayesian inference strategy + ResGCN
0.7770 ±0.0410
This paper
241
JKNet
actual #241 vs paper #241
0.7443 ±0.0830
actual #241 vs paper #241
paper 0.7443 ±0.0830

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7443 ±0.0830 Δ at pub 0.0840
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)