Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Heterophily and Oversmoothing in Graph Convolutional Neural Networks

About

In node classification tasks, graph convolutional neural networks (GCNs) have demonstrated competitive performance over traditional methods on diverse graph data. However, it is known that the performance of GCNs degrades with increasing number of layers (oversmoothing problem) and recent studies have also shown that GCNs may perform worse in heterophilous graphs, where neighboring nodes tend to belong to different classes (heterophily problem). These two problems are usually viewed as unrelated, and thus are studied independently, often at the graph filter level from a spectral perspective. We are the first to take a unified perspective to jointly explain the oversmoothing and heterophily problems at the node level. Specifically, we profile the nodes via two quantitative metrics: the relative degree of a node (compared to its neighbors) and the node-level heterophily. Our theory shows that the interplay of these two profiling metrics defines three cases of node behaviors, which explain the oversmoothing and heterophily problems jointly and can predict the performance of GCNs. Based on insights from our theory, we show theoretically and empirically the effectiveness of two strategies: structure-based edge correction, which learns corrected edge weights from structural properties (i.e., degrees), and feature-based edge correction, which learns signed edge weights from node features. Compared to other approaches, which tend to handle well either heterophily or oversmoothing, we show that {our model, GGCN}, which incorporates the two strategies performs well in both problems.

Yujun Yan, Milad Hashemi, Kevin Swersky, Yaoqing Yang, Danai Koutra• 2021

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Node ClassificationCora
Accuracy87.95
1215
Node ClassificationCiteseer
Accuracy77.14
931
Node ClassificationCora (test)
Mean Accuracy87.95
861
Node ClassificationCiteseer (test)
Accuracy0.7714
824
Node ClassificationPubmed
Accuracy89.63
819
Node ClassificationChameleon
Accuracy77.14
640
Node ClassificationWisconsin
Accuracy86.86
627
Node ClassificationTexas
Accuracy84.86
616
Node ClassificationSquirrel
Accuracy55.17
591
Node ClassificationCornell
Accuracy85.68
582
Showing 10 of 102 rows
...

Other info

Follow for update