Heterophily-Agnostic Hypergraph Neural Networks with Riemannian Local Exchanger

Li Sun, Ming Zhang, Wenxin Jin, Zhongtian Sun, Zhenhao Huang, Hao Peng, Sen Su, Philip Yu

Main figure for Heterophily-Agnostic Hypergraph Neural Networks with Riemannian Local Exchanger

Abstract

Hypergraphs are the natural description of higher-order interactions among objects, widely applied in social network analysis, cross-modal retrieval, etc. Hypergraph Neural Networks (HGNNs) have become the dominant solution for learning on hypergraphs. Traditional HGNNs are extended from message passing graph neural networks, following the homophily assumption, and thus struggle with the prevalent heterophilic hypergraphs that call for long-range dependence modeling. Existing solutions enlarge the message flow through the hypergraph bottleneck, mitigating the oversquashing issue and capturing long-range dependence. However, they often accelerate the loss of representation distinguishability in the repeated aggregations, leading to oversmoothing. This dilemma motivates an interesting question: Can we develop a unified mechanism that is agnostic to both homophilic and heterophilic hypergraphs? In this paper, we achieve the best of both worlds through the lens of Riemannian geometry, which provides the potential to adjust the message passing behavior in different regions. The key insight lies in the connection between oversquashing and hypergraph bottleneck within the framework of Riemannian manifold heat flow. Building on this, we propose the novel idea of locally adapting the bottlenecks of different subhypergraphs. The core innovation of the proposed mechanism is the design of an adaptive local (heat) exchanger. Specifically, it captures the rich long-range dependencies via the Robin condition, and preserves the representation distinguishability via source terms, thereby enabling heterophily-agnostic message passing with theoretical guarantees. Based on this theoretical foundation, we present a novel Heat-Exchanger with Adaptive Locality for Hypergraph Neural Network (HealHGNN), designed as a node-hyperedge bidirectional systems with linear complexity in the number of nodes and hyperedges. Extensive experiments on both homophilic and heterophilic cases show that HealHGNN achieves the state-of-the-art performance.

Proposed method: HealHGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
178
HealHGNN
0.7506 ±0.0116
This paper
187
KHGNN
0.7480 ±0.0110
This paper
189
FrameHGNN
0.7472 ±0.0210
This paper
190
SheafHyperGNN
0.7471 ±0.0123
This paper
207
PhenomNN
0.7445 ±0.0096
This paper
227
Deep-HGNN
0.7407 ±0.0164
This paper
253
ED-HNN
0.7370 ±0.0138
This paper
323
AllSetTransformer
0.7308 ±0.0120
This paper
324
UniGCNII
0.7305 ±0.0221
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
360
HyperGCN
actual #360 vs paper #360
0.7276 ±0.0112
actual #360 vs paper #360
paper 0.7276 ±0.0112

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7276 ±0.0112 Δ at pub 0.1284
373
HNHN
actual #373 vs paper #373
0.7264 ±0.0157
actual #373 vs paper #373
paper 0.7264 ±0.0157
paper 0.7264 ±0.0157 Δ at pub 0.0536
408
HCHA
0.7242 ±0.0142
This paper
570
AllDeepSets
0.7083 ±0.0163
This paper
750
HGNN
actual #750 vs paper #812 62 places worse
0.6616 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #750 vs paper #812 62 places worse
paper 0.6245 ±0.0116
paper 0.6245 ±0.0116 Δ at pub 0.0371
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
117
HealHGNN
0.8880 ±0.0031
This paper
119
FrameHGNN
0.8873 ±0.0042
This paper
133
KHGNN
0.8847 ±0.0047
This paper
177
SheafHyperGNN
0.8768 ±0.0060
This paper
179
AllSetTransformer
0.8766 ±0.0043
This paper
184
ED-HNN
0.8758 ±0.0065
This paper
188
Deep-HGNN
0.8742 ±0.0022
This paper
193
UniGCNII
0.8731 ±0.0045
This paper
206
AllDeepSets
0.8704 ±0.0052
This paper
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
225
HGNN
actual #225 vs paper #225
0.8644 ±0.0044
actual #225 vs paper #225
paper 0.8644 ±0.0044
paper 0.8644 ±0.0044 Δ at pub 0.0292
262
HCHA
0.8456 ±0.0031
This paper
273
HNHN
actual #273 vs paper #273
0.8421 ±0.0064
actual #273 vs paper #273
paper 0.8421 ±0.0064
paper 0.8421 ±0.0064 Δ at pub 0.0324
308
HyperGCN
actual #308 vs paper #308
0.8284 ±0.0067
actual #308 vs paper #308
paper 0.8284 ±0.0067

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8284 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.0444
666
PhenomNN
0.7812 ±0.0024
This paper

Hypergraph Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HealHGNN
0.7718 ±0.0235
This paper
2
Deep-HGNN
0.7526 ±0.0176
This paper
3
mechanism (shared)
0.7470 ±0.0756
4
KHGNN
0.7431 ±0.0287
This paper
5
SheafHyperGNN
0.7384 ±0.0230
This paper
6
FrameHGNN
0.7282 ±0.0222
This paper
7
ED-HNN
0.7245 ±0.0228
This paper
9
PhenomNN
0.7071 ±0.0235
This paper
10
AllSetTransformer
actual #10 vs paper #10
0.6983 ±0.0522
actual #10 vs paper #10
paper 0.6983 ±0.0522
prev best: Hypergraph Benchmarks (ICLR 2021)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6983 ±0.0522 Δ at pub 0.0050
12
MLP
0.6793 ±0.0233
13
AllDeepSets
0.6782 ±0.0240
This paper
14
HNHN
0.6780 ±0.0259
This paper
15
UniGCNII
0.6725 ±0.0257
This paper
17
HGNN
0.6139 ±0.0296
This paper
18
HCHA
0.6136 ±0.0253
This paper
19
HyperGCN
actual #19 vs paper #19
0.6013 ±0.0176
actual #19 vs paper #19
paper 0.6013 ±0.0176
prev best: Hypergraph Benchmarks (ICLR 2021)
paper 0.6013 ±0.0176 Δ at pub 0.1182
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HealHGNN
0.9198 ±0.0031
This paper
2
AllSetTransformer
actual #2 vs paper #7 5 places worse
0.9198 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #7 5 places worse
paper 0.9153 ±0.0023
paper 0.9153 ±0.0023 Δ at pub 0.0045
3
ED-HNN
0.9190 ±0.0019
This paper
4
PhenomNN
0.9186 ±0.0022
This paper
5
Deep-HGNN
0.9176 ±0.0028
This paper
6
UniGCNII
0.9169 ±0.0019
This paper
7
SheafHyperGNN
0.9159 ±0.0024
This paper
9
AllDeepSets
0.9127 ±0.0027
This paper
10
KHGNN
0.9121 ±0.0037
This paper
11
HGNN
0.9103 ±0.0020
This paper
12
HCHA
0.9092 ±0.0022
This paper
16
HyperGCN
actual #16 vs paper #16
0.8998 ±0.0043
actual #16 vs paper #16
paper 0.8998 ±0.0043
prev best: Hypergraph Benchmarks (ICLR 2021)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8998 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0060
19
HNHN
0.8678 ±0.0029
This paper
20
MLP
0.8483 ±0.0022
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HealHGNN
0.6822 ±0.0056
This paper
2
ED-HNN
0.6679 ±0.0041
This paper
3
AllSetTransformer
0.6546 ±0.0025
This paper
4
KHGNN
0.6517 ±0.0079
This paper
5
AllDeepSets
0.6455 ±0.0033
This paper
6
PhenomNN
0.6343 ±0.0043
This paper
7
HCHA
actual #7 vs paper #7
0.6245 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #7
paper 0.6235 ±0.0026
best at pub: Hypergraph Benchmarks (ICLR 2021)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6235 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0010
8
HGNN
0.6200 ±0.0024
This paper
9
Deep-HGNN
0.5864 ±0.0074
This paper
10
UniGCNII
0.5445 ±0.0037
This paper
12
HNHN
actual #12 vs paper #12
0.5118 ±0.0035
actual #12 vs paper #12
paper 0.5118 ±0.0035
prev best: Hypergraph Benchmarks (ICLR 2021)
paper 0.5118 ±0.0035 Δ at pub 0.0400
14
HyperGCN
actual #14 vs paper #14
0.4874 ±0.0281
actual #14 vs paper #14
paper 0.4874 ±0.0281
prev best: Hypergraph Benchmarks (ICLR 2021)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4874 ±0.0281 Δ at pub 0.0400
16
MLP
0.4551 ±0.0024
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HealHGNN
0.9345 ±0.0079
This paper
2
ED-HNN
0.9328 ±0.0059
This paper
3
KHGNN
0.9255 ±0.0103
This paper
4
Deep-HGNN
0.9247 ±0.0106
This paper
5
UniGCNII
0.9243 ±0.0071
This paper
6
AllSetTransformer
0.9216 ±0.0105
This paper
7
SheafHyperGNN
0.9181 ±0.0160
This paper
8
AllDeepSets
0.9180 ±0.0153
This paper
9
HGNN
0.9126 ±0.0115
This paper
10
HNHN
0.9089 ±0.0031
This paper
11
HCHA
0.9043 ±0.0120
This paper
12
PhenomNN
0.8824 ±0.0147
This paper
13
HyperGCN
0.8743 ±0.0146
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HealHGNN
0.7606 ±0.0413
This paper
2
KHGNN
0.7123 ±0.0394
This paper
3
AllSetTransformer
0.6933 ±0.0220
This paper
4
SheafHyperGNN
0.6873 ±0.0468
This paper
5
Deep-HGNN
0.6839 ±0.0479
This paper
6
PhenomNN
0.6770 ±0.0524
This paper
7
FrameHGNN
0.6761 ±0.0527
This paper
8
ED-HNN
0.6479 ±0.0514
This paper
9
HNHN
0.5093 ±0.0633
This paper
10
HyperGCN
0.5013 ±0.0321
This paper
11
UniGCNII
0.4930 ±0.0425
This paper
12
HCHA
0.4862 ±0.0441
This paper
13
HGNN
0.4859 ±0.0452
This paper
14
AllDeepSets
0.4817 ±0.0567
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