Papers › MixHop: Higher-Order Graph Convolutional Architectures via Sparsified Neighborhood Mixing

MixHop: Higher-Order Graph Convolutional Architectures via Sparsified Neighborhood Mixing

30 Apr 2019arXiv:1905.00067archive 2025-07-28

Sami Abu-El-Haija, Bryan Perozzi, Amol Kapoor, Nazanin Alipourfard, Kristina Lerman, Hrayr Harutyunyan, Greg Ver Steeg, Aram Galstyan

Existing popular methods for semi-supervised learning with Graph Neural Networks (such as the Graph Convolutional Network) provably cannot learn a general class of neighborhood mixing relationships. To address this weakness, we propose a new model, MixHop, that can learn these relationships, including difference operators, by repeatedly mixing feature representations of neighbors at various distances. Mixhop requires no additional memory or computational complexity, and outperforms on challenging baselines. In addition, we propose sparsity regularization that allows us to visualize how the network prioritizes neighborhood information across different graph datasets. Our analysis of the learned architectures reveals that neighborhood mixing varies per datasets.

PaperPDFCode

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

Code

samihaija/mixhop officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubtf report
benedekrozemberczki/MixHop-and-N-GCN mentioned on GitHubpytorchGPL-3.0 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

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Node ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Node Classification Actor MixHop Accuracy 32.22 ± 2.34 #54 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon MixHop Accuracy 60.50 ± 2.53 #51 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 36.28 ± 10.22 #38 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 49.52 ± 13.35 #33 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer MixHop Accuracy 71.4% #54 of 71 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer MixHop Training Split 20 per node #54 of 71 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer MixHop Validation YES #54 of 71 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 76.26 ± 1.33 #20 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora MixHop Accuracy 81.9% #58 of 73 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora MixHop Training Split 20 per node #58 of 73 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora MixHop Validation YES #58 of 73 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 87.61 ± 0.85 #17 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 65.65 ± 11.31 #33 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell MixHop Accuracy 73.51 ± 6.34 #48 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 60.33 ± 28.53 #36 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 33.13 ± 2.40 #32 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 MixHop Accuracy 83.47 ± 0.71 #13 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 85.31 ± 0.61 #25 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 87.04 ± 4.10 #30 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Pubmed MixHop Accuracy 80.8% #31 of 70 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Pubmed MixHop Training Split 20 per node #31 of 70 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Pubmed MixHop Validation YES #31 of 70 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel MixHop Accuracy 43.80 ± 1.48 #48 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 24.55 ± 2.60 #37 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas MixHop Accuracy 77.84 ± 7.73 #51 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 76.39 ± 7.66 #33 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin MixHop Accuracy 75.88 ± 4.90 #55 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 77.25 ± 7.80 #25 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius MixHop Accuracy 90.58 ± 0.16 #10 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 60.50 ± 2.53  #24 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 36.28 ± 10.22 #32 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 73.51 ± 6.34  #24 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 60.33 ± 28.53 #33 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 66.80±0.58 #11 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 32.22 ± 2.34 #23 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 83.47 ± 0.71 #8 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy  43.80 ± 1.48  #23 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 77.84 ± 7.73  #20 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 76.39 ± 7.66 #30 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 75.88 ± 4.90  #22 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 77.25 ± 7.80 #22 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 90.58 ± 0.16 #12 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers MixHop 1:1 Accuracy 65.64 ± 0.27 #10 of 26 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