Papers › Revisiting Heterophily For Graph Neural Networks

Revisiting Heterophily For Graph Neural Networks

14 Oct 2022arXiv:2210.07606archive 2025-07-28

Sitao Luan, Chenqing Hua, Qincheng Lu, Jiaqi Zhu, Mingde Zhao, Shuyuan Zhang, Xiao-Wen Chang, Doina Precup

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) extend basic Neural Networks (NNs) by using graph structures based on the relational inductive bias (homophily assumption). While GNNs have been commonly believed to outperform NNs in real-world tasks, recent work has identified a non-trivial set of datasets where their performance compared to NNs is not satisfactory. Heterophily has been considered the main cause of this empirical observation and numerous works have been put forward to address it. In this paper, we first revisit the widely used homophily metrics and point out that their consideration of only graph-label consistency is a shortcoming. Then, we study heterophily from the perspective of post-aggregation node similarity and define new homophily metrics, which are potentially advantageous compared to existing ones. Based on this investigation, we prove that some harmful cases of heterophily can be effectively addressed by local diversification operation. Then, we propose the Adaptive Channel Mixing (ACM), a framework to adaptively exploit aggregation, diversification and identity channels node-wisely to extract richer localized information for diverse node heterophily situations. ACM is more powerful than the commonly used uni-channel framework for node classification tasks on heterophilic graphs and is easy to be implemented in baseline GNN layers. When evaluated on 10 benchmark node classification tasks, ACM-augmented baselines consistently achieve significant performance gain, exceeding state-of-the-art GNNs on most tasks without incurring significant computational burden.

PaperPDFCodeCode 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="2210.07606")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 7 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 5 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 7 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN officialmentioned on GitHubpytorchMIT 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; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 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
5unverified

Licence: 0 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 SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN. “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.

load_twitch_gamer SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/load_data.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong MIT (permissive) · d4e6fd9f6cd8a3ad · report
sparse_mx_to_torch_sparse_tensor SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/utils.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong MIT (permissive) · bdc1f1dad6d978e7 · report
even_quantile_labels SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/data_utils.py official repository unverified MIT (permissive) · d305673ad3b29c2a · report
load_fb100 SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/load_data.py official repository unverified MIT (permissive) · a94acffdc2999ab9 · report
load_twitch SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/load_data.py official repository unverified MIT (permissive) · 166a96050e3dbbad · report
normalize_tensor SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/utils.py official repository unverified MIT (permissive) · 3d6744ce51e1b5e3 · report
rand_train_test_idx SitaoLuan/ACM-GNN/ACM-Geometric/data_utils.py official repository unverified MIT (permissive) · e8000a86d21ce0e0 · report

Tasks

Inductive BiasNode ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Node Classification Actor ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 37.31 ± 1.09 #26 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 37.09 ± 1.32 #29 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACM-GCN Accuracy 36.63 ± 0.84 #33 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACMII-GCN Accuracy 36.31 ± 1.2 #35 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 36.26 ± 1.34 #36 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 36.14 ± 1.44 #39 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACM-SGC-2 Accuracy 36.04 ± 0.83 #42 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor ACM-SGC-1 Accuracy 35.49 ± 1.06 #46 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 74.76 ± 2.2 #12 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 74.56 ± 2.08 #14 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 74.47 ± 1.84 #16 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 74.41 ± 1.49 #17 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACM-GCN Accuracy 69.14 ± 1.91 #34 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACMII-GCN Accuracy 68.46 ± 1.7 #38 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACM-SGC-1 Accuracy 63.99 ± 1.66 #47 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon ACM-SGC-2 Accuracy 59.21 ± 2.22 #54 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 76.08 ± 2.13 #3 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 75.93 ± 1.71 #4 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 75.51 ± 1.58 #5 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 75.23 ± 1.72 #6 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 68.51 ± 1.7 #8 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 68.4 ± 2.05 #9 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 68.38 ± 1.36 #10 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 68.14 ± 1.18 #12 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 67.83 ± 2.63 #13 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 67.53 ± 2.83 #14 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 64.68 ± 2.85 #19 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 63.68 ± 1.62 #22 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 61.66 ± 2.29 #27 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 60.48 ± 1.55 #30 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 58.73 ± 2.52 #33 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 46.72 ± 0.46 #37 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 82.28 ± 1.12 #3 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 82.07 ± 1.04 #4 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 81.87 ± 1.38 #5 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 81.83 ± 1.65 #7 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 81.79 ± 0.95 #8 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 81.76 ± 1.25 #9 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 81.69 ± 1.25 #10 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 81.65 ± 1.48 #11 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 81.58 ± 1.23 #13 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 81.56 ± 1.15 #14 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 81.32 ± 0.97 #17 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 80.96 ± 0.93 #18 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 80.93 ± 1.16 #20 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 76.25 ± 0.28 #27 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 74.49 ± 2.76 #28 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 73.77 ± 1.85 #29 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 77.67 ± 1.19 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 77.46 ± 1.65 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 77.2 ± 1.61 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 77.15 ± 1.45 #8 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 77.12 ± 1.58 #12 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 76.73 ± 1.59 #16 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 76.59 ± 1.69 #18 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.25 ± 0.96 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 88.19 ± 1.17 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.11 ± 0.96 #8 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 88.05 ± 0.99 #11 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.01 ± 1.08 #12 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 87.69 ± 1.07 #16 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 86.9 ± 1.38 #20 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 89.75 ± 1.16 #2 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 89.59 ± 1.58 #3 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 89.52 ± 0.43 #4 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 89.47 ± 1.08 #5 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 89.36 ± 1.26 #6 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 89.33 ± 0.81 #8 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 89.18 ± 1.11 #9 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 89.1 ± 1.61 #10 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 89.00 ± 1.35 #11 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.00 ± 0.72 #12 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 88.95 ± 1.04 #14 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 88.83 ± 1.49 #17 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 87.64 ± 0.99 #21 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 86.63 ± 1.13 #24 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 76.44 ± 0.30 #32 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 86.49 ± 6.73 #9 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACMII-GCN Accuracy 85.95 ± 5.64 #16 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 85.68 ± 4.84 #19 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 85.68 ± 5.8 #20 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 85.41 ± 5.3 #22 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACM-GCN Accuracy 85.14 ± 6.07 #23 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACM-SGC-1 Accuracy 82.43 ± 5.44 #35 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell ACM-SGC-2 Accuracy 82.43 ± 5.44 #36 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 95.9 ± 1.83 #1 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.25 ± 1.55 #2 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.08 ± 3.11 #3 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 94.92 ± 2.79 #4 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 3.8 #5 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 94.26 ± 2.57 #6 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 93.93 ± 1.05 #7 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 93.93 ± 3.03 #8 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 93.77 ± 1.91 #9 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 93.77 ± 2.17 #10 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 93.61 ± 2.79 #11 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 93.44 ± 2.74 #12 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 92.62 ± 3.13 #13 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 92.62 ± 2.57 #14 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 91.30 ± 0.70 #18 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 74.43 ± 10.24 #28 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 66.56 ± 13.82 #33 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 41.86 ± 1.48 #5 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 41.84 ± 1.15 #6 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 41.79 ± 1.01 #8 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 41.66 ± 1.42 #9 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 41.5 ± 1.54 #11 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 41.4 ± 1.23 #12 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 41.37 ± 1.37 #13 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 41.27 ± 1.24 #14 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 41.27 ± 0.8 #15 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 41.1 ± 0.75 #16 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 40.31 ± 1.6 #18 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 40.13 ± 1.21 #19 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 39.33 ± 1.25 #20 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 38.58 ± 0.25 #24 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 35.41 ± 0.97 #31 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 32.72 ± 2.62 #33 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 86.08 ± 0.43 #2 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 85.95 ± 0.26 #3 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 85.05 ± 0.19 #7 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 84.95 ± 0.43 #8 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.89 ± 0.43 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 89.82 ± 0.41 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 89.78 ± 0.49 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 89.71 ± 0.48 #6 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 89.65 ± 0.58 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 89.01 ± 0.6 #16 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 88.49 ± 0.51 #19 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 91.44 ± 0.59 #3 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 91.31 ± 0.6 #4 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 90.96 ± 0.62 #5 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 90.81 ± 0.52 #6 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 90.74 ± 0.5 #7 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 90.66 ± 0.47 #8 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 90.63 ± 0.56 #10 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 90.56 ± 0.39 #11 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 90.46 ± 0.69 #12 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 90.39 ± 0.33 #13 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 90.18 ± 0.51 #14 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 90.12 ± 0.4 #15 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 90.09 ± 0.68 #16 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 89.15 ± 0.87 #22 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 88.79 ± 0.5 #26 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 87.75 ± 0.88 #29 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 86.43 ± 0.13 #32 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 67.4 ± 2.21 #11 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 67.07 ± 1.65 #12 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 67.06 ± 1.66 #13 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 66.98 ± 1.71 #14 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACM-GCN Accuracy 55.19 ± 1.49 #36 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACMII-GCN Accuracy 51.8 ± 1.5 #42 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACM-SGC-1 Accuracy 45.00 ± 1.4 #47 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel ACM-SGC-2 Accuracy 40.02 ± 0.96 #49 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 69.98 ± 1.53 #2 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 69.81 ± 1.11 #3 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 69.26 ± 1.11 #4 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 68.56 ± 1.33 #5 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 55.97 ± 2.03 #7 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 55.73 ± 2.39 #8 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 54.53 ± 2.09 #9 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 53.48 ± 0.6 #10 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 53.40 ± 1.90 #11 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 52.31 ± 1.57 #12 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 52.28 ± 3.61 #13 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 46.4 ± 1.13 #20 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 40.91 ± 1.39 #28 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 40.9 ± 1.58 #29 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 38.32 ± 1.5 #31 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 31.28 ± 0.27 #35 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 88.38 ± 3.64 #7 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 88.38 ± 3.43 #8 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 88.38 ± 3.43 #9 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 88.11 ± 3.24 #11 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACM-GCN Accuracy 87.84 ± 4.4 #12 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACMII-GCN Accuracy 86.76 ± 4.75 #16 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACM-SGC-1 Accuracy 81.89 ± 4.53 #46 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas ACM-SGC-2 Accuracy 81.89 ± 4.53 #47 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 96.56 ± 2 #1 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.74 ± 2.22 #2 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 95.41 ± 2.82 #3 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.25 ± 1.55 #4 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 95.08 ± 2.07 #5 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 94.92 ± 2.79 #6 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 2.41 #7 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 3.09 #8 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 2.91 #9 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 93.61 ± 1.55 #11 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 93.44 ± 2.54 #12 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 93.28 ± 2.79 #13 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 92.46 ± 1.97 #16 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 92.26 ± 0.71 #17 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 80.66 ± 1.91 #29 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 75.41 ± 7.18 #34 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACM-GCN Accuracy 88.43 ± 3.22 #14 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 88.43 ± 2.39 #15 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 88.43 ± 3.66 #16 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 88.24 ± 3.16 #18 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 88.04 ± 3.66 #20 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACMII-GCN Accuracy 87.45 ± 3.74 #28 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACM-SGC-1 Accuracy 86.47 ± 3.77 #37 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin ACM-SGC-2 Accuracy 86.47 ± 3.77 #38 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 97.5 ± 1.25 #1 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 97.13 ± 1.68 #2 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 97.00 ± 2.63 #3 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 96.75 ± 1.79 #4 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 96.63 ± 2.24 #5 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 96.62 ± 1.86 #6 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 96.62 ± 2.44 #7 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 96.5 ± 2.08 #8 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 96.38 ± 2.59 #9 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 95.75 ± 2.03 #10 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 94.63 ± 2.96 #11 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 94.37 ± 2.81 #12 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 94.00 ± 2.61 #13 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 93.87 ± 3.33 #14 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 93.25 ± 2.92 #16 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 69.50 ± 3.12 #31 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 62.50 ± 15.75 #35 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius ACM-GCN++ Accuracy 91.37 ± 0.07 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius ACM-GCN+ Accuracy 91.22 ± 0.13 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius ACMII-GCN+ Accuracy 91.13 ± 0.09 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius ACMII-GCN++ Accuracy 91.01 ± 0.18 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 74.76 ± 2.2 #4 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 74.56 ± 2.08 #5 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 74.47 ± 1.84 #6 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 74.41 ± 1.49 #7 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 69.14 ± 1.91 #13 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 68.46 ± 1.7 #15 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 63.99 ± 1.66 #21 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 59.21 ± 2.22 #27 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 76.08 ± 2.13 #1 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 75.93 ± 1.71 #2 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 75.51 ± 1.58 #3 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 75.23 ± 1.72 #4 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 68.51 ± 1.7 #5 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 68.4 ± 2.05 #6 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 68.38 ± 1.36 #7 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 68.14 ± 1.18 #9 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 67.83 ± 2.63 #10 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 67.53 ± 2.83 #11 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 64.68 ± 2.85 #16 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 63.68 ± 1.62 #19 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 61.66 ± 2.29 #23 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 60.48 ± 1.55 #25 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 58.73 ± 2.52 #27 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 46.72 ± 0.46 #31 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 86.49 ± 6.73 #2 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 85.95 ± 5.64 #4 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 85.68 ± 4.84 #8 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 85.68 ± 5.8 #9 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 85.41 ± 5.3 #10 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 85.14 ± 6.07 #11 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 82.43 ± 5.44 #16 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 82.43 ± 5.44 #17 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 95.9 ± 1.83 #1 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.25 ± 1.55 #2 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.08 ± 3.11 #3 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 94.92 ± 2.79 #4 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 3.8 #5 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 94.26 ± 2.57 #6 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 93.93 ± 1.05 #7 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 93.93 ± 3.03 #8 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 93.77 ± 2.17 #9 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 93.77 ± 1.91 #10 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 93.61 ± 2.79 #11 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 93.44 ± 2.74 #12 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 92.62 ± 2.57 #13 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 92.62 ± 3.13 #14 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 74.43 ± 10.24 #27 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 66.56 ± 13.82 #31 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACMII-GCN+++ 1:1 Accuracy 67.5±0.53 #1 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 67.44±0.31 #2 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 67.4±0.44 #3 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 67.3±0.48 #4 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 67.15±0.41 #7 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 67.01±0.38 #8 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 66.67±0.56 #12 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 66.6±0.57 #13 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 66.53±0.57 #15 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 66.39±0.56 #17 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 37.31 ± 1.09 #9 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 37.09 ± 1.32 #10 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 36.63 ± 0.84 #12 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 36.31 ± 1.2 #14 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 36.26 ± 1.34 #15 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 36.14 ± 1.44 #16 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 36.04 ± 0.83 #18 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 35.49 ± 1.06 #20 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 86.08 ± 0.43 #1 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 85.95 ± 0.26 #2 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 85.05 ± 0.19 #5 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 84.95 ± 0.43 #6 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 82.73 ± 0.52 #10 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 82.4 ± 0.48 #12 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 MLP 1:1 Accuracy 73.61 ± 0.40 #26 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 67.4 ± 2.21 #4 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 67.07 ± 1.65 #5 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 67.06 ± 1.66 #6 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 66.98 ± 1.71 #7 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 55.19 ± 1.49 #15 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 51.8 ± 1.5 #19 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 45.00 ± 1.4 #22 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 40.02 ± 0.96 #24 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 88.38 ± 3.64 #1 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.38 ± 3.43 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.38 ± 3.43 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 88.11 ± 3.24 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.84 ± 4.4 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 86.76 ± 4.75 #6 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 81.89 ± 4.53 #17 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 81.89 ± 4.53 #18 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 96.56 ± 2 #1 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.74 ± 2.22 #2 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 95.41 ± 2.82 #3 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 95.25 ± 1.55 #4 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 95.08 ± 2.07 #5 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 94.92 ± 2.79 #6 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 2.41 #7 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 3.09 #8 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 94.75 ± 2.91 #9 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 93.61 ± 1.55 #10 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 93.44 ± 2.54 #11 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 93.28 ± 2.79 #12 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 92.46 ± 1.97 #15 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 80.66 ± 1.91 #27 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 75.41 ± 7.18 #31 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.43 ± 3.22 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 88.43 ± 2.39 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.43 ± 3.66 #6 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 88.24 ± 3.16 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 88.04 ± 3.66 #9 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.45 ± 3.74 #11 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 86.47 ± 3.77 #16 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 86.47 ± 3.77 #17 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 97.5 ± 1.25 #1 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 97.13 ± 1.68 #2 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 97.00 ± 2.63 #3 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 96.75 ± 1.79 #4 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 96.63 ± 2.24 #5 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-3 1:1 Accuracy 96.62 ± 1.86 #6 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 96.62 ± 2.44 #7 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 96.5 ± 2.08 #8 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-Snowball-2 1:1 Accuracy 96.38 ± 2.59 #9 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 95.75 ± 2.03 #10 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 94.63 ± 2.96 #11 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 94.37 ± 2.81 #12 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-2 1:1 Accuracy 94.00 ± 2.61 #13 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) ACM-SGC-1 1:1 Accuracy 93.25 ± 2.92 #16 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) GAT+JK 1:1 Accuracy 69.50 ± 3.12 #28 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCN+JK 1:1 Accuracy 62.50 ± 15.75 #32 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 91.44 ± 0.08 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 91.4 ± 0.07 #3 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 91.33 ± 0.11 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 91.19 ± 0.16 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 91.13 ± 0.09 #6 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 91.01 ± 0.18 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers ACM-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 66.24 ± 0.24 #4 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers ACM-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 65.943 ± 0.284 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers ACMII-GCN++ 1:1 Accuracy 65.92 ± 0.14 #8 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers ACMII-GCN+ 1:1 Accuracy 65.838 ± 0.153 #9 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers ACM-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 63.92 ± 0.19 #14 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers ACMII-GCN 1:1 Accuracy 63.73 ± 0.13 #16 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