Characterizing Graph Datasets for Node Classification: Homophily-Heterophily Dichotomy and Beyond

Overview

• This paper examines the concept of homophily, which describes the tendency of edges in a graph to connect similar nodes, and its opposite, heterophily.
• The authors argue that commonly used measures of homophily have critical flaws that prevent accurate comparison of homophily levels across different datasets.
• They propose a new measure called "adjusted homophily" that satisfies more desirable properties than other popular homophily measures.
• Beyond homophily and heterophily, the authors introduce a new characteristic called "label informativeness" (LI) that captures how much a neighbor's label provides information about a node's label.
• The paper empirically shows that LI better aligns with the performance of graph neural networks (GNNs) compared to homophily measures.

Plain English Explanation

Homophily is a property of graphs that describes the tendency of nodes that are connected to be similar to each other. For example, in a social network, friends tend to have similar interests, demographics, or beliefs. The opposite of homophily is heterophily, where connected nodes are more different than similar.

The authors argue that the existing ways of measuring homophily have some major problems. These measures can't be used to easily compare the homophily levels across different datasets, which makes it hard to understand how graph structure affects the performance of graph neural networks (GNNs).

To address this, the authors propose a new measure called "adjusted homophily" that works better than other homophily measures. They also introduce a new characteristic called "label informativeness" (LI) that looks at how much a node's neighbors can tell us about its own label. The authors show that LI aligns better with the performance of GNNs compared to homophily measures.

These new ideas can help researchers and practitioners better understand how the structure of a graph, in terms of homophily, heterophily, and label informativeness, affects the performance of GNNs and other graph learning algorithms. This could lead to the development of more robust and effective graph learning models.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by highlighting the importance of the homophily-heterophily dichotomy in the performance of standard message-passing GNNs. It is commonly believed that heterophilous graphs pose a significant challenge for these GNNs, and thus, much effort has been put into developing efficient methods for this setting.

However, the authors argue that there is no universally agreed-upon measure of homophily in the literature. They then formalize desirable properties for a proper homophily measure and verify which existing measures satisfy these properties. The authors show that a measure they call "adjusted homophily" satisfies more desirable properties than other popular homophily measures, despite being rarely used in the graph machine learning literature.

Furthermore, the paper goes beyond the homophily-heterophily dichotomy and proposes a new characteristic called "label informativeness" (LI). LI captures how much information a neighbor's label provides about a node's label. The authors prove that this measure satisfies important desirable properties and observe empirically that LI better agrees with GNN performance compared to homophily measures.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling case for the need to re-examine how we measure and characterize the structure of graphs, particularly in the context of graph learning tasks. The authors' critique of existing homophily measures is well-founded, as these measures can indeed be problematic when comparing homophily levels across different datasets.

The introduction of "adjusted homophily" and "label informativeness" (LI) as new ways of characterizing graph structure is a valuable contribution. The authors provide a thorough theoretical analysis of these measures and demonstrate their advantages over other commonly used approaches.

However, one potential limitation of the study is the reliance on a relatively small number of real-world datasets. While the authors do include several synthetic datasets to test their measures, a more comprehensive evaluation across a wider range of real-world graphs could provide additional insights and further validate the usefulness of these new characteristics.

Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential practical implications of these new measures for the design and optimization of graph neural networks and other graph learning algorithms. Further research could explore how these measures can be leveraged to improve the performance and robustness of such models, particularly in heterophilous settings.

Conclusion

This paper presents a critical analysis of existing measures of homophily and introduces two new characteristics, "adjusted homophily" and "label informativeness" (LI), to better capture the underlying structure of graphs. The authors demonstrate the limitations of current homophily measures and show that their proposed measures satisfy more desirable properties.

The findings of this work have the potential to significantly impact the field of graph machine learning, as they provide researchers and practitioners with a more nuanced understanding of graph structure and its relationship to the performance of graph neural networks and other graph learning algorithms. By moving beyond the homophily-heterophily dichotomy and introducing LI, this paper opens up new avenues for exploring the complex interplay between graph topology and the effectiveness of graph-based models.

Overall, this research represents an important step forward in the ongoing effort to develop more robust and efficient graph learning techniques that can better handle the diverse range of real-world graph structures encountered in various applications.