Papers › Geom-GCN: Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks

Geom-GCN: Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks

13 Feb 2020ICLR 2020 1arXiv:2002.05287archive 2025-07-28

Hongbin Pei, Bingzhe Wei, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Yu Lei, Bo Yang

Message-passing neural networks (MPNNs) have been successfully applied to representation learning on graphs in a variety of real-world applications. However, two fundamental weaknesses of MPNNs' aggregators limit their ability to represent graph-structured data: losing the structural information of nodes in neighborhoods and lacking the ability to capture long-range dependencies in disassortative graphs. Few studies have noticed the weaknesses from different perspectives. From the observations on classical neural network and network geometry, we propose a novel geometric aggregation scheme for graph neural networks to overcome the two weaknesses. The behind basic idea is the aggregation on a graph can benefit from a continuous space underlying the graph. The proposed aggregation scheme is permutation-invariant and consists of three modules, node embedding, structural neighborhood, and bi-level aggregation. We also present an implementation of the scheme in graph convolutional networks, termed Geom-GCN (Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks), to perform transductive learning on graphs. Experimental results show the proposed Geom-GCN achieved state-of-the-art performance on a wide range of open datasets of graphs. Code is available at https://github.com/graphdml-uiuc-jlu/geom-gcn.

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="2002.05287")

Code

Syntology Ran 7 of 7 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 4 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: community (archive-listed): 7 samples from 2 repositories, 7 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

graphdml-uiuc-jlu/geom-gcn officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report
alexfanjn/geomgcn_pyg mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
bingzhewei/geom-gcn 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

7 samples harvested; 7 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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.

1ran · honoured contract
4ran · our draft was wrong
2ran

Licence: 7 of the 7 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.

GeomGCN alexfanjn/geomgcn_pyg/model.py community (archive-listed) ran no licence file found · pointer only · fdae60f85c7b410e · report
GeomGCN_layer alexfanjn/geomgcn_pyg/model.py community (archive-listed) ran no licence file found · pointer only · 2ef6fd9f93ca6ebf · report
edge_index_to_sparse_tensor_adj alexfanjn/geomgcn_pyg/model.py community (archive-listed) ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · c187bf050bb2c556 · report
gcn_norm alexfanjn/geomgcn_pyg/model.py community (archive-listed) ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · 0626d35807929da7 · report
load_data bingzhewei/geom-gcn/utils.py community (archive-listed) ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · 32302e598b1afb70 · report
parse_index_file bingzhewei/geom-gcn/utils.py community (archive-listed) ran · honoured contract no licence file found · pointer only · dfd091f34611a47a · report
sample_mask bingzhewei/geom-gcn/utils.py community (archive-listed) ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · 61cb7d8c95b55c0c · report

Tasks

Node ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) GraphsRepresentation LearningTransductive Learning

Datasets

Introduced by this paper, per the archive.

Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits)PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits)

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Node Classification Actor Geom-GCN-P Accuracy 31.63 #56 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor Geom-GCN-S Accuracy 30.3 #58 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor Geom-GCN-I Accuracy 29.09 #61 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon Geom-GCN-P Accuracy 60.9 #50 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon Geom-GCN-I Accuracy 60.31 #52 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon Geom-GCN-S Accuracy 59.96 #53 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 60.9 #29 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 77.99 #26 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 78.02 ± 1.15 #1 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 85.35 ± 1.57 #23 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 85.27 #27 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell Geom-GCN-P Accuracy 60.81 #53 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell Geom-GCN-I Accuracy 56.76 #56 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell Geom-GCN-S Accuracy 55.68 #57 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 60.81 #35 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 31.63 #34 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.95 ± 0.47 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 90.05 #17 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel Geom-GCN-P Accuracy 38.14 #52 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel Geom-GCN-S Accuracy 36.24 #54 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel Geom-GCN-I Accuracy 33.32 #56 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 38.14 #33 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas Geom-GCN-P Accuracy 67.57 #56 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas Geom-GCN-S Accuracy 59.73 #60 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas Geom-GCN-I Accuracy 57.58 #61 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 67.57 #36 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin Geom-GCN-P Accuracy 64.12 #58 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin Geom-GCN-I Accuracy 58.24 #60 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin Geom-GCN-S Accuracy 56.67 #62 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 64.12 #34 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 60.00 ± 2.81 #26 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 60.9 #24 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 60.54 ± 3.67 #25 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 60.81 #32 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 31.59 ± 1.15 #25 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 38.15 ± 0.92 #26 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 66.76 ± 2.72 #24 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 67.57 #32 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) Geom-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 64.51 ± 3.66 #24 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) Geom-GCN* 1:1 Accuracy 64.12 #31 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