Robust Learning on Heterogeneous Graphs with Heterophily: A Graph Structure Learning Approach

Yihang Zhang, E. Kuruoglu

Main figure for Robust Learning on Heterogeneous Graphs with Heterophily: A Graph Structure Learning Approach

Abstract

Heterogeneous graphs with heterophily have emerged as a powerful abstraction for modeling complex real-world systems, where nodes of different types and labels interact in diverse and often non-homophilous ways. Despite recent advances, robust representation learning for such graphs remains largely unexplored, particularly in the presence of noisy or misleading connectivity. In this work, we investigate this problem and identify structural noise as a critical challenge that significantly degrades model performance. To address this issue, we propose a unified framework, Heterogeneous Graph Unified Learning (HGUL), which jointly handles heterophily and noisy graph structures. The framework consists of three complementary modules: a kNN-based graph construction module that recovers reliable local neighborhoods, a graph structure learning module that adaptively refines the adjacency by filtering noisy edges, and a heterogeneous affinity learning module that captures class-level relationships via an extended affinity matrix derived from a polynomial graph kernel. Extensive experiments on multiple datasets demonstrate that HGUL consistently outperforms existing methods on clean graphs and maintains strong robustness under varying levels of structural noise. The results further underscore the importance of jointly modeling heterophily and noise in heterogeneous graph learning.

Proposed method: HGUL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LMSPS+LP+MS
0.5784 ±0.0022
2
SeHGNN+emb+ms
0.5719 ±0.0012
3
SeHGNN+ms
0.5671 ±0.0014
17
HGUL
0.5421 ±0.0027
This paper
26
H2G-former
0.5312 ±0.0032
This paper
36
Hetero2Net
0.5160 ±0.0033
This paper
39
R-GraphSAGE
0.5094 ±0.0044
This paper
42
HGT
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.5023 ±0.0048
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.5023 ±0.0048
paper 0.5023 ±0.0048 Δ at pub 0.0096
46
HDHGR
0.4921 ±0.0038
This paper
47
GAT
actual #47 vs paper #47
0.4860 ±0.0029
actual #47 vs paper #47
paper 0.4860 ±0.0029
paper 0.4860 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.1093
55
MixHop
0.4699 ±0.0041
This paper
56
R-GCN
actual #56 vs paper #56
0.4693 ±0.0046
actual #56 vs paper #56
paper 0.4693 ±0.0046
paper 0.4693 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0716
57
GraphSAGE
actual #57 vs paper #63 6 places worse
0.4646 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #63 6 places worse
paper 0.4080 ±0.0056
paper 0.4080 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0566
58
LatGRL
0.4607 ±0.0040
This paper
59
Simple-HGN
0.4339 ±0.0028
This paper
60
GCN
actual #60 vs paper #60
0.4290 ±0.0050
actual #60 vs paper #60
paper 0.4290 ±0.0050
paper 0.4290 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0803
61
NAGphormer
0.4247 ±0.0074
This paper
62
R-GAT
0.4151 ±0.0047
This paper
63
LINKX
0.4083 ±0.0018
This paper
64
HAN
0.3900 ±0.0022
This paper
65
APPNP
0.3764 ±0.0031
This paper
66
GIN
0.3732 ±0.0033
This paper
76
MLP
0.3243

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SAGE
0.8597 ±0.0021
2
Polynormer
0.8595 ±0.0007
3
NID_SAGE
0.8563 ±0.0031
7
LINKX
actual #7 vs paper #46 39 places worse
0.8204 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #46 39 places worse
paper 0.3142 ±0.0120
paper 0.3142 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.5062 Δ today 0.5062
10
MixHop
actual #10 vs paper #49 39 places worse
0.8107 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #49 39 places worse
paper 0.3013 ±0.0086
paper 0.3013 ±0.0086 Δ at pub 0.5094
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #51 28 places worse
0.7601 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #51 28 places worse
paper 0.2879 ±0.0107
paper 0.2879 ±0.0107 Δ at pub 0.4722
24
GraphSAGE
actual #24 vs paper #45 21 places worse
0.7576 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #45 21 places worse
paper 0.3149 ±0.0123
paper 0.3149 ±0.0123 Δ at pub 0.4427
28
GAT
actual #28 vs paper #52 24 places worse
0.7177 ±0.0618
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #52 24 places worse
paper 0.2851 ±0.0045
paper 0.2851 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.4326
31
MLP
0.7048 ±0.0077
34
APPNP
actual #34 vs paper #52 18 places worse
0.6691 ±0.0146
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #52 18 places worse
paper 0.2727 ±0.0147
paper 0.2727 ±0.0147 Δ at pub 0.3964
42
GIN
actual #42 vs paper #52 10 places worse
0.5337 ±0.0215
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #52 10 places worse
paper 0.2853 ±0.0054
paper 0.2853 ±0.0054 Δ at pub 0.2484
44
HGUL
0.3305 ±0.0057
This paper
45
Simple-HGN
0.3166 ±0.0086
This paper
46
R-GCN
0.3144 ±0.0096
This paper
47
Hetero2Net
0.3114 ±0.0059
This paper
48
H2G-former
0.3101 ±0.0026
This paper
49
HGT
0.3089 ±0.0080
This paper
50
R-GraphSAGE
0.2985 ±0.0047
This paper
51
LatGRL
0.2909 ±0.0033
This paper
52
HDHGR
0.2867 ±0.0019
This paper
53
HAN
0.2315 ±0.0043
This paper
54
R-GAT
0.2209 ±0.0094
This paper
55
NAGphormer
0.1707 ±0.0034
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