Papers › Simple and Deep Graph Convolutional Networks

Simple and Deep Graph Convolutional Networks

4 Jul 2020ICML 2020 1arXiv:2007.02133archive 2025-07-28

Ming Chen, Zhewei Wei, Zengfeng Huang, Bolin Ding, Yaliang Li

Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) are a powerful deep learning approach for graph-structured data. Recently, GCNs and subsequent variants have shown superior performance in various application areas on real-world datasets. Despite their success, most of the current GCN models are shallow, due to the {\em over-smoothing} problem. In this paper, we study the problem of designing and analyzing deep graph convolutional networks. We propose the GCNII, an extension of the vanilla GCN model with two simple yet effective techniques: {\em Initial residual} and {\em Identity mapping}. We provide theoretical and empirical evidence that the two techniques effectively relieves the problem of over-smoothing. Our experiments show that the deep GCNII model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on various semi- and full-supervised tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/chennnM/GCNII .

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="2007.02133")

Code

Syntology Ran 5 of 7 code samples harvested from 3 repositories linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 5 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran; community (archive-listed): 2 samples from 1 repository, 1 ran; found in paper text by Syntology: 3 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.

chennnM/GCNII officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report
chennnM/GCNII mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
tyxxzjpdez/GCNII-DropGroups mentioned on GitHubpytorch report
zhanglab-aim/cancer-net mentioned on GitHubpytorchGPL-2.0 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; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 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.

5ran
2unverified

Licence: 4 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 3 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.

GCNII chennnM/GCNII/model.py official repository ran · metamorphic tier: deterministic no licence file found · pointer only · a074a40bcfdd0a11 · report
GraphConvolution chennnM/GCNII/model.py official repository ran · metamorphic tier: deterministic no licence file found · pointer only · d25069830e57132b · report
GCNII tyxxzjpdez/GCNII-DropGroups/model.py community (archive-listed) ran no licence file found · pointer only · d20eb9dda5900242 · report
GraphConvolution tyxxzjpdez/GCNII-DropGroups/model.py community (archive-listed) unverified no licence file found · pointer only · a34e675fad092d7b · report
GraphBaseBlock DropEdge/DropEdge/src/layers.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · metamorphic tier: deterministic MIT (permissive) · bb5e99ea5619c65c · report
GraphConvolutionBS DropEdge/DropEdge/src/layers.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · metamorphic tier: deterministic MIT (permissive) · d708bae8bd5d1d66 · report
ResGCNBlock DropEdge/DropEdge/src/layers.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified MIT (permissive) · 9fab06aa18273efc · report

Tasks

Graph ClassificationGraph RegressionLink PredictionNode ClassificationNode Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) GraphsNode Property Prediction

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Graph Classification Peptides-func GCNII AP 0.5543±0.0078 #43 of 44 Archive leaderboard report
Graph Regression Peptides-struct GCNII MAE 0.3471±0.0010 #37 of 39 Archive leaderboard report
Link Prediction PCQM-Contact GCNII Hits@1 0.1325±0.0009 #5 of 18 Archive leaderboard report
Link Prediction PCQM-Contact GCNII Hits@10 0.8116±0.0009 #5 of 18 Archive leaderboard report
Link Prediction PCQM-Contact GCNII Hits@3 0.3607±0.0003 #5 of 18 Archive leaderboard report
Link Prediction PCQM-Contact GCNII MRR 0.3161±0.0004 #5 of 18 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Actor GCNII Accuracy 37.44 ± 1.30 #23 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification COCO-SP GCNII macro F1 0.1404±0.0011 #16 of 19 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon GCNII Accuracy 63.86 ± 3.04 #48 of 61 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 62.8 ± 2.87 #24 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 60.35 ± 2.7 #31 of 38 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 81.83 ± 1.78 #6 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 81.58 ± 1.3 #12 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification CiteSeer with Public Split: fixed 20 nodes per class GCNII Accuracy 73.4% #14 of 40 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 77.33 ± 1.48 #5 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Citeseer Full-supervised GCNII* Accuracy 77.13% #4 of 7 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 88.37 ± 1.25 #2 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 88.98 ± 1.33 #13 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 88.93 ± 1.37 #15 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora Full-supervised GCNII Accuracy 88.49% #1 of 9 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cora with Public Split: fixed 20 nodes per class GCNII Accuracy 85.5% #3 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell GCNII Accuracy 77.86 ± 3.79 #44 of 60 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 90.49 ± 4.45 #19 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 89.18 ± 3.96 #20 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 41.54 ± 0.99 #10 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 40.82 ± 1.79 #17 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PPI GCNII* F1 99.56 #2 of 24 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PascalVOC-SP GCNII macro F1 0.1698±0.0080 #19 of 21 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Penn94 GCNII Accuracy 82.92 ± 0.59 #14 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 90.15 ± 0.43 #1 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 89.98 ± 0.52 #19 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 89.8 ± 0.3 #21 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification PubMed with Public Split: fixed 20 nodes per class GCNII Accuracy 80.2% #15 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Pubmed Full-supervised GCNII* Accuracy 90.30% #4 of 7 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel GCNII Accuracy 38.47 ± 1.58 #51 of 59 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 38.81 ± 1.97 #30 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 38.31 ± 1.3 #32 of 37 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas GCNII Accuracy 77.57 ± 3.83 #52 of 62 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 88.52 ± 3.02 #20 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 82.46 ± 4.58 #27 of 36 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin GCNII Accuracy 80.39 ± 3.40 #51 of 63 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 89.12 ± 3.06 #19 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 83.25 ± 2.69 #23 of 35 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification genius GCNII Accuracy 90.24 ± 0.09 #11 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 63.86 ± 3.04  #22 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 62.8 ± 2.87 #20 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 60.35 ± 2.7 #26 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 77.86 ± 3.79  #21 of 27 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 90.49 ± 4.45 #19 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 89.18 ± 3.96 #20 of 33 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 66.42±0.56 #16 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 66.38±0.45 #18 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 37.44 ± 1.30 #7 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 82.92 ± 0.59 #9 of 28 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 38.47 ± 1.58 #25 of 29 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 77.57 ± 3.83 #21 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 88.52 ± 3.02 #19 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 82.46 ± 4.58 #25 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 80.39 ± 3.40 #20 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII* 1:1 Accuracy 89.12 ± 3.06 #19 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 83.25 ± 2.69 #21 of 32 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 90.24 ± 0.09 #13 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers GCNII 1:1 Accuracy 63.39 ± 0.61 #18 of 26 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCNII Ext. data No #57 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCNII Number of params 2148648 #57 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCNII Test Accuracy 0.7274 ± 0.0016 #57 of 86 Archive leaderboard report
Node Property Prediction ogbn-arxiv GCNII Validation Accuracy Please tell us #57 of 86 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.

Methods

Introduced by this paper: GCNII

GCNGCNIIResidual Connection

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