Finding Global Homophily in Graph Neural Networks When Meeting Heterophily

15 May 2022  ·  Xiang Li, Renyu Zhu, Yao Cheng, Caihua Shan, Siqiang Luo, Dongsheng Li, Weining Qian ·

We investigate graph neural networks on graphs with heterophily. Some existing methods amplify a node's neighborhood with multi-hop neighbors to include more nodes with homophily. However, it is a significant challenge to set personalized neighborhood sizes for different nodes. Further, for other homophilous nodes excluded in the neighborhood, they are ignored for information aggregation. To address these problems, we propose two models GloGNN and GloGNN++, which generate a node's embedding by aggregating information from global nodes in the graph. In each layer, both models learn a coefficient matrix to capture the correlations between nodes, based on which neighborhood aggregation is performed. The coefficient matrix allows signed values and is derived from an optimization problem that has a closed-form solution. We further accelerate neighborhood aggregation and derive a linear time complexity. We theoretically explain the models' effectiveness by proving that both the coefficient matrix and the generated node embedding matrix have the desired grouping effect. We conduct extensive experiments to compare our models against 11 other competitors on 15 benchmark datasets in a wide range of domains, scales and graph heterophilies. Experimental results show that our methods achieve superior performance and are also very efficient.

PDF Abstract

Results from the Paper


Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Node Classification Actor GloGNN++ Accuracy 37.7 ± 1.40 # 12
Node Classification Actor GloGNN Accuracy 37.35 ± 1.30 # 16
Node Classification arXiv-year GloGNN++ Accuracy 54.79±0.25 # 8
Node Classification Chameleon GloGNN Accuracy 69.78±2.42 # 26
Node Classification Chameleon GloGNN++ Accuracy 71.21±1.84 # 22
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 69.78 ± 2.42  # 11
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 71.21 ± 1.84  # 7
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 77.41 ± 1.65 # 4
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 77.22 ± 1.78 # 6
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.33 ± 1.09 # 3
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 88.31 ± 1.13 # 4
Node Classification Cornell GloGNN++ Accuracy 85.95±5.10 # 12
Node Classification Cornell GloGNN Accuracy 83.51±4.26 # 25
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 85.95 ± 5.10  # 3
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 83.51 ± 4.26 # 14
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 37.70 ± 1.40  # 5
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 37.35 ± 1.30 # 8
Node Classification genius GloGNN++ Accuracy 90.91 ± 0.13 # 6
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 90.66 ± 0.11 # 11
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 90.91 ± 0.13 # 8
Node Classification genius GloGNN Accuracy 90.66 ± 0.11 # 9
Node Classification genius GCNJK Accuracy 89.30 ± 0.19 # 13
Node Classification genius MLP Accuracy 86.68 ± 0.09 # 15
Node Classification Penn94 GloGNN Accuracy 85.57 ± 0.35 # 5
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 85.57 ± 0.35 # 4
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 85.74 ± 0.42 # 3
Node Classification Penn94 GloGNN++ Accuracy 85.74±0.42 # 4
Node Classification pokec GloGNN++ Accuracy 83.05±0.07 # 2
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 89.24 ± 0.39 # 13
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 89.62 ± 0.35 # 8
Node Classification Squirrel GloGNN++ Accuracy 57.88±1.76– # 24
Node Classification Squirrel GloGNN Accuracy 57.54±1.39 # 25
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 57.88 ± 1.76  # 10
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 57.54 ± 1.39  # 11
Node Classification Texas GloGNN Accuracy 84.32±4.15 # 29
Node Classification Texas GloGNN++ Accuracy 84.05±4.90 # 31
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 84.32 ± 4.15  # 12
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 84.05 ± 4.90 # 14
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 66.19 ± 0.29 # 5
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy 66.34 ± 0.29 # 3
Node Classification Wisconsin GloGNN++ Accuracy 88.04±3.22 # 15
Node Classification Wisconsin GloGNN Accuracy 87.06±3.53 # 24
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN++ 1:1 Accuracy  88.04 ± 3.22  # 8
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GloGNN 1:1 Accuracy 87.06 ± 3.53  # 13

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here