Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks

4 Jan 2021  ·  Deyu Bo, Xiao Wang, Chuan Shi, HuaWei Shen ·

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have been proven to be effective in various network-related tasks. Most existing GNNs usually exploit the low-frequency signals of node features, which gives rise to one fundamental question: is the low-frequency information all we need in the real world applications? In this paper, we first present an experimental investigation assessing the roles of low-frequency and high-frequency signals, where the results clearly show that exploring low-frequency signal only is distant from learning an effective node representation in different scenarios. How can we adaptively learn more information beyond low-frequency information in GNNs? A well-informed answer can help GNNs enhance the adaptability. We tackle this challenge and propose a novel Frequency Adaptation Graph Convolutional Networks (FAGCN) with a self-gating mechanism, which can adaptively integrate different signals in the process of message passing. For a deeper understanding, we theoretically analyze the roles of low-frequency signals and high-frequency signals on learning node representations, which further explains why FAGCN can perform well on different types of networks. Extensive experiments on six real-world networks validate that FAGCN not only alleviates the over-smoothing problem, but also has advantages over the state-of-the-arts.

PDF Abstract
Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Node Classification Actor FAGCN Accuracy 34.82 ± 1.35 # 36
Node Classification Chameleon FAGCN Accuracy 46.07 ± 2.11 # 54
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 46.07 ± 2.11 # 28
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 49.47 ± 2.84 # 34
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 49.47 ± 2.84 # 30
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 77.07 ± 2.05 # 14
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 79.97 ± 0.69 # 22
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 82.37 ± 1.46 # 1
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.05 ± 1.57 # 10
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.85 ± 1.36 # 15
Node Classification Cornell FAGCN Accuracy 76.76 ± 5.87 # 42
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 76.76 ± 5.87 # 23
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.03 ± 5.6 # 21
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.03 ± 5.6 # 21
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 66.86±0.53 # 10
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Film(48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 34.82 ± 1.35 # 22
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 31.59 ± 1.37 # 33
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 38.85 ± 1.17 # 21
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.09 ± 1.38 # 22
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.98 ± 0.54 # 16
Node Classification Squirrel FAGCN Accuracy 30.83 ± 0.69 # 51
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 30.83 ± 0.69 # 28
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 42.24 ± 1.2 # 24
Node Classification Texas FAGCN Accuracy 76.49 ± 2.87 # 46
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 76.49 ± 2.87 # 22
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) H2GCN 1:1 Accuracy 84.86 ± 7.23 # 10
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.85 ± 4.39 # 19
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 88.85 ± 4.39 # 18
Node Classification Wisconsin WRGAT Accuracy 86.98 ± 3.78 # 25
Node Classification Wisconsin FAGCN Accuracy 79.61 ± 1.58 # 44
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 79.61 ± 1.58 # 21
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.75 ± 6.37 # 18
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) FAGCN 1:1 Accuracy 89.75 ± 6.37 # 18

Methods