Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2106.06134 v4 pith:C3AB5SUL submitted 2021-06-11 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords heterophilousgraphgraphsperformancehomophilynetworksachievecarefully
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have shown great prowess in learning representations suitable for numerous graph-based machine learning tasks. When applied to semi-supervised node classification, GNNs are widely believed to work well due to the homophily assumption ("like attracts like"), and fail to generalize to heterophilous graphs where dissimilar nodes connect. Recent works design new architectures to overcome such heterophily-related limitations, citing poor baseline performance and new architecture improvements on a few heterophilous graph benchmark datasets as evidence for this notion. In our experiments, we empirically find that standard graph convolutional networks (GCNs) can actually achieve better performance than such carefully designed methods on some commonly used heterophilous graphs. This motivates us to reconsider whether homophily is truly necessary for good GNN performance. We find that this claim is not quite true, and in fact, GCNs can achieve strong performance on heterophilous graphs under certain conditions. Our work carefully characterizes these conditions, and provides supporting theoretical understanding and empirical observations. Finally, we examine existing heterophilous graphs benchmarks and reconcile how the GCN (under)performs on them based on this understanding.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Are Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks Truly Effective for Node Classification? A Causal Perspective

    cs.LG 2025-10 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A large benchmark suggests tuned RGCN matches complex HGNNs and heterogeneous graphs help mainly via homophily and local-global label discrepancy, but the causal analysis is circular.

  2. Analyzing Image Encoder Choices and Graph Homophily in GCN Frameworks for Breast Ultrasound Classification

    eess.IV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Higher-capacity image encoders improve cosine k-NN graph homophily and GCN classification metrics on breast ultrasound, with test-set homophily linearly tracking accuracy.

  3. How do Probabilistic Graphical Models and Graph Neural Networks Look at Network Data?

    stat.ML 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SBM-style probabilistic models outperform graph neural networks on link prediction when node features are low-dimensional, noisy, or the graph is heterophilic.

Pith tools