Papers › Beyond Homophily in Graph Neural Networks: Current Limitations and Effective Designs

Beyond Homophily in Graph Neural Networks: Current Limitations and Effective Designs

20 Jun 2020NeurIPS 2020 12arXiv:2006.11468archive 2025-07-28

Jiong Zhu, Yujun Yan, Lingxiao Zhao, Mark Heimann, Leman Akoglu, Danai Koutra

We investigate the representation power of graph neural networks in the semi-supervised node classification task under heterophily or low homophily, i.e., in networks where connected nodes may have different class labels and dissimilar features. Many popular GNNs fail to generalize to this setting, and are even outperformed by models that ignore the graph structure (e.g., multilayer perceptrons). Motivated by this limitation, we identify a set of key designs -- ego- and neighbor-embedding separation, higher-order neighborhoods, and combination of intermediate representations -- that boost learning from the graph structure under heterophily. We combine them into a graph neural network, H2GCN, which we use as the base method to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of the identified designs. Going beyond the traditional benchmarks with strong homophily, our empirical analysis shows that the identified designs increase the accuracy of GNNs by up to 40% and 27% over models without them on synthetic and real networks with heterophily, respectively, and yield competitive performance under homophily.

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="2006.11468")

Code

Syntology Ran 13 of 21 code samples harvested from 5 repositories linked to this paper; 8 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · violated contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 4 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 4 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran; community (archive-listed): 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran; found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 3 repositories, 9 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

GemsLab/H2GCN officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubtf report
GitEventhandler/H2GCN-PyTorch mentioned on GitHubpytorchMPL-2.0 report
kdd-submitter/on_local_aggregation mentioned on GitHubpytorch 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

21 samples harvested; 13 ran; 4 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 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.

4ran · honoured contract
2ran · violated contract
2ran · our draft was wrong
1ran · fixture could not drive it
4ran
8unverified

Licence: 6 of the 21 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 5 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.

Layer GemsLab/H2GCN/h2gcn/models/H2GCN.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · bdae8b092f8e8c19 · report
masked_softmax_cross_entropy GemsLab/H2GCN/h2gcn/models/H2GCN.py official repository ran · honoured contract no licence file found · pointer only · 2fc7117a43f16d67 · report
toNumpy GemsLab/H2GCN/h2gcn/models/H2GCN.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · d2666218b266548c · report
H2GCN GemsLab/H2GCN/h2gcn/models/H2GCN.py official repository unverified no licence file found · pointer only · 8bba7c5bbd4a1809 · report
H2GCN sxwee/GNNsIMPL/H2GCN/model/h2gcn.py community (archive-listed) ran no licence file found · pointer only · 6753abfdba2f2cd6 · report
MeanAggregator williamleif/graphsage-simple/graphsage/aggregators.py found in paper text by Syntology ran no licence file found · pointer only · 3c752dfc33d87577 · report
dot tkipf/gcn/gcn/layers.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · fixture could not drive it fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · bc3a2072a2a9cca3 · report
get_layer_uid tkipf/gcn/gcn/layers.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · honoured contract fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · b82968db452628fd · report
load_data tkipf/gcn/gcn/utils.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · our draft was wrong MIT (permissive) · 36d8bb4858e7bb51 · report
masked_accuracy tkipf/gcn/gcn/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · violated contract MIT (permissive) · b89d4728d3c8578d · report
masked_softmax_cross_entropy tkipf/gcn/gcn/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · honoured contract MIT (permissive) · d103f29cc58337a2 · report
parse_index_file PetarV-/GAT/utils/process.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · honoured contract MIT (permissive) · c1d6392f89c5e495 · report
sample_mask PetarV-/GAT/utils/process.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · violated contract fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · b32fd748b4bbe3bf · report
zeros tkipf/gcn/gcn/inits.py found in paper text by Syntology ran MIT (permissive) · b190ef9c60b2629a · report
adj_to_bias PetarV-/GAT/utils/process.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 5a0b371866f14f67 · report
dfs_split PetarV-/GAT/utils/process_ppi.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · fa7f6abbe630e912 · report
find_split PetarV-/GAT/utils/process_ppi.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 6beddb1e8d4bd5ff · report
glorot tkipf/gcn/gcn/inits.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 1b491f3f784b7cb0 · report
sparse_dropout tkipf/gcn/gcn/layers.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 81be8a5f4732fe52 · report
test PetarV-/GAT/utils/process_ppi.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · cbd09a8688d1836a · report
uniform tkipf/gcn/gcn/inits.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · b0d1b78daecde7e9 · report

Tasks

Graph Neural NetworkNode ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Node Classification Actor H2GCN-2 Accuracy 34.49 ± 1.63 #52 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor H2GCN-1 Accuracy 34.31 ± 1.31 #53 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon H2GCN-2 Accuracy 58.38 ± 1.76 #56 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon H2GCN-1 Accuracy 52.96 ± 2.09 #57 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 52.30 ± 0.48 #34 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 77.11 ± 1.57 #13 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.87 ± 1.20 #15 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.52 ± 0.61 #22 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell H2GCN-2 Accuracy 79.46 ± 4.80 #41 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell H2GCN-1 Accuracy 78.11 ± 6.68 #42 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 86.23 ± 4.71 #22 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 H2GCN Accuracy 81.31 ± 0.60 #21 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.49 ± 0.38 #9 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.78 ± 0.28 #28 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel H2GCN-2 Accuracy 32.33 ± 1.94 #57 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel H2GCN-1 Accuracy 28.98 ± 1.97 #59 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 30.39 ± 1.22 #36 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas H2GCN-1 Accuracy 83.24 ± 7.07 #42 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas H2GCN-2 Accuracy 80.00 ± 6.77 #50 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 85.90 ± 3.53 #22 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin H2GCN-1 Accuracy 84.31 ± 3.70 #45 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin H2GCN-2 Accuracy 83.14 ± 4.26 #47 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.5 ± 1.77 #20 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 60.11 ± 2.15 #25 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 52.30 ± 0.48 #28 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 82.70 ± 5.28 #15 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 86.23 ± 4.71 #22 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 67.22±0.90 #5 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 35.70 ± 1.00 #19 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 81.31 ± 0.60 #16 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 36.48 ± 1.86 #27 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 85.90 ± 3.53 #20 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.65 ± 4.98 #10 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.5 ± 1.77 #20 of 32 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