Papers › Combining Label Propagation and Simple Models Out-performs Graph Neural Networks

Combining Label Propagation and Simple Models Out-performs Graph Neural Networks

27 Oct 2020ICLR 2021 1arXiv:2010.13993archive 2025-07-28

Qian Huang, Horace He, Abhay Singh, Ser-Nam Lim, Austin R. Benson

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are the predominant technique for learning over graphs. However, there is relatively little understanding of why GNNs are successful in practice and whether they are necessary for good performance. Here, we show that for many standard transductive node classification benchmarks, we can exceed or match the performance of state-of-the-art GNNs by combining shallow models that ignore the graph structure with two simple post-processing steps that exploit correlation in the label structure: (i) an "error correlation" that spreads residual errors in training data to correct errors in test data and (ii) a "prediction correlation" that smooths the predictions on the test data. We call this overall procedure Correct and Smooth (C&S), and the post-processing steps are implemented via simple modifications to standard label propagation techniques from early graph-based semi-supervised learning methods. Our approach exceeds or nearly matches the performance of state-of-the-art GNNs on a wide variety of benchmarks, with just a small fraction of the parameters and orders of magnitude faster runtime. For instance, we exceed the best known GNN performance on the OGB-Products dataset with 137 times fewer parameters and greater than 100 times less training time. The performance of our methods highlights how directly incorporating label information into the learning algorithm (as was done in traditional techniques) yields easy and substantial performance gains. We can also incorporate our techniques into big GNN models, providing modest gains. Our code for the OGB results is at https://github.com/Chillee/CorrectAndSmooth.

PaperPDFConference PDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2010.13993")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 5 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran; community (archive-listed): 3 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

CUAI/CorrectAndSmooth officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report
Chillee/CorrectAndSmoothOGB mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
sangyx/gtrick mentioned on GitHubpytorchMIT report
xnuohz/CorrectAndSmooth-dgl mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
ytchx1999/GCN_res-CS-v2 mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
ytchx1999/PyG-GCN_res-CS mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
dmlc/dgl pytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

2ran · our draft was wrong
3unverified

Licence: 2 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

test CUAI/CorrectAndSmooth/gen_models.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · 5a209cddf7b3e52f · report
train CUAI/CorrectAndSmooth/gen_models.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · fac9425843013f50 · report
eval sangyx/gtrick/benchmark/dgl/graph_pred.py community (archive-listed) unverified MIT (permissive) · 3f05a96b5815dd82 · report
random_feature sangyx/gtrick/gtrick/random_feature.py community (archive-listed) unverified MIT (permissive) · 95753adaeccb24eb · report
train sangyx/gtrick/benchmark/dgl/graph_pred.py community (archive-listed) unverified MIT (permissive) · 4254dbfb6411b68f · report

Tasks

Node ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) GraphsNode Property Prediction

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Node Classification Penn94 C&S 2-hop Accuracy 78.40 ± 3.12 #24 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 C&S 1-hop Accuracy 74.28 ± 1.19 #28 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius C&S 2-hop Accuracy 84.94 ± 0.49 #17 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius C&S 1-hop Accuracy 82.93 ± 0.15 #18 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe C&S(1hop) 1:1 Accuracy 64.60±0.57 #19 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe C&S(2hop) 1:1 Accuracy 64.52±0.62 #20 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 C&S 2-hop 1:1 Accuracy 78.40 ± 3.12 #20 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 C&S 1-hop 1:1 Accuracy 74.28 ± 1.19 #24 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius C&S 2-hop 1:1 Accuracy 84.94 ± 0.49 #19 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius C&S 1-hop 1:1 Accuracy 82.93 ± 0.15 #20 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers C&S 2-hop 1:1 Accuracy 65.02 ± 0.16 #11 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers C&S 1-hop 1:1 Accuracy 64.86 ± 0.27 #12 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT(norm.adj.)+label reuse+C&S Ext. data No #33 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT(norm.adj.)+label reuse+C&S Number of params 1441580 #33 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT(norm.adj.)+label reuse+C&S Test Accuracy 0.7395 ± 0.0012 #33 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT(norm.adj.)+label reuse+C&S Validation Accuracy 0.7519 ± 0.0008 #33 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT + C&S Ext. data No #35 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT + C&S Number of params 1567000 #35 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT + C&S Test Accuracy 0.7386 ± 0.0014 #35 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GAT + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.7484 ± 0.0007 #35 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S_v2 Ext. data No #46 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S_v2 Number of params 155824 #46 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S_v2 Test Accuracy 0.7313 ± 0.0017 #46 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S_v2 Validation Accuracy 0.7445 ± 0.0011 #46 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv MLP + C&S Ext. data No #47 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv MLP + C&S Number of params 175656 #47 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv MLP + C&S Test Accuracy 0.7312 ± 0.0012 #47 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv MLP + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.7391 ± 0.0015 #47 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S Ext. data No #51 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S Number of params 155824 #51 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S Test Accuracy 0.7297 ± 0.0022 #51 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCN_res + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.7423 ± 0.0014 #51 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Linear + C&S Ext. data No #63 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Linear + C&S Number of params 15400 #63 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Linear + C&S Test Accuracy 0.7222 ± 0.0002 #63 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Linear + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.7368 ± 0.0004 #63 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Plain Linear + C&S Ext. data No #78 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Plain Linear + C&S Number of params 5160 #78 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Plain Linear + C&S Test Accuracy 0.7126 ± 0.0001 #78 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv Plain Linear + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.7300 ± 0.0001 #78 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Spec-MLP-Wide + C&S Ext. data No #21 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Spec-MLP-Wide + C&S Number of params 406063 #21 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Spec-MLP-Wide + C&S Test Accuracy 0.8451 ± 0.0006 #21 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Spec-MLP-Wide + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.9132 ± 0.0010 #21 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products MLP + C&S Ext. data No #24 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products MLP + C&S Number of params 96247 #24 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products MLP + C&S Test Accuracy 0.8418 ± 0.0007 #24 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products MLP + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.9147 ± 0.0009 #24 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Linear + C&S Ext. data No #31 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Linear + C&S Number of params 10763 #31 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Linear + C&S Test Accuracy 0.8301 ± 0.0001 #31 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Linear + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.9134 ± 0.0001 #31 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Plain Linear + C&S Ext. data No #33 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Plain Linear + C&S Number of params 4747 #33 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Plain Linear + C&S Test Accuracy 0.8254 ± 0.0003 #33 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products Plain Linear + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.9103 ± 0.0001 #33 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GAT w/NS + C&S Ext. data No #42 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GAT w/NS + C&S Number of params 753622 #42 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GAT w/NS + C&S Test Accuracy 0.8092 ± 0.0037 #42 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GAT w/NS + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.9263 ± 0.0008 #42 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GraphSAGE w/NS + C&S Ext. data No #45 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GraphSAGE w/NS + C&S Number of params 207919 #45 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GraphSAGE w/NS + C&S Test Accuracy 0.8041 ± 0.0022 #45 of 64 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-products GraphSAGE w/NS + C&S Validation Accuracy 0.9238 ± 0.0007 #45 of 64 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections