A critical look at the evaluation of GNNs under heterophily: Are we really making progress?

Oleg Platonov, Denis Kuznedelev, Michael Diskin, Artem Babenko, Liudmila Prokhorenkova

Keywords: GNN, graph, node classification, heterophily, benchmark

TL;DR: We show that popular heterophilous datasets for node classification have serious drawbacks, propose several new ones, and show that, at this moment, standard GNNs outperform most of the specialized models on these datasets.

Abstract: Node classification is a classical graph representation learning task on which Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have recently achieved strong results. However, it is often believed that standard GNNs only work well for homophilous graphs, i.e., graphs where edges tend to connect nodes of the same class. Graphs without this property are called heterophilous, and it is typically assumed that specialized methods are required to achieve strong performance on such graphs. In this work, we challenge this assumption. First, we show that the standard datasets used for evaluating heterophily-specific models have serious drawbacks, making results obtained by using them unreliable. The most significant of these drawbacks is the presence of a large number of duplicate nodes in the datasets Squirrel and Chameleon, which leads to train-test data leakage. We show that removing duplicate nodes strongly affects GNN performance on these datasets. Then, we propose a set of heterophilous graphs of varying properties that we believe can serve as a better benchmark for evaluating the performance of GNNs under heterophily. We show that standard GNNs achieve strong results on these heterophilous graphs, almost always outperforming specialized models. Our datasets and the code for reproducing our experiments are available at https://github.com/yandex-research/heterophilous-graphs

Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.

No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.

Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics

Submission Guidelines: Yes

Please Choose The Closest Area That Your Submission Falls Into: Infrastructure (eg, datasets, competitions, implementations, libraries)

Community Implementations: [ 1 code implementation](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2302.11640/code)