LSPI: Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network Classification Aggregation Algorithm Based on Size Neighbor Path Identification

Path Discriminator first calculates the total degree value of all nodes of each meta-path as shown in Equation 1:

In the above equation,${D_{\Phi_{m}}}$ is the degree sum of all the nodes under the meta-path ${\Phi_{m}}$, ${d_{i,j}}$ denotes the value of the ${j}$-th element of the ${i}$-th row of ${\Phi_{m}}$, and ${\left|\mathcal{V}_{A}\right|}$ denotes the number of nodes of the target type.

After the above calculation, the degree value set ${D_{\Phi}=\left\{D_{\Phi_{i}}|i\in\left(1,...,p\right)\right\}}$ of all meta-paths is obtained, where p is the number of meta-paths. Path Discriminator performs path delineation by calculating the relative differences between the degree values:

After obtaining the relative difference percentage between meta-paths ${R_{\Phi}=\left\{R_{\Phi_{i}}|i\in\left(1,...,p\right)\right\}}$, the Path Discriminator divides the meta-paths into large neighbor paths and small neighbor paths according to the relative difference values.

Where ${\tau}$ is the set hyperparameter value, when ${\tau}$ takes 100% it means that the path degree value in the LargePaths set is at least twice the minimum degree value. In the experimental part, this paper will analyze the value of ${\tau}$.

Due to the existence of a large number of neighbor nodes in the large neighbor path, as analyzed in the previous section, it is difficult to truly avoid noise interference when using attention aggregation. Convolution operations treat all nodes as equally important, which inevitably reduces the model’s accuracy in the presence of noise. Therefore, filtering out noisy nodes from multiple neighbors to improve the effectiveness of aggregation is an effective method to optimize the aggregation of large neighborhood paths. LSPI selects the neighbors with the highest topological relationships and feature similarity from both topological and feature perspectives for aggregation, in order to avoid noise interference.

At the topological level this paper first calculates the transit probability under meta-path , for relation ${R_{i}}$ in ${\Phi}$ there is a transit probability ${P^{R_{i}}=\left(D^{R_{i}}\right)^{-1}{Adj}^{R_{i}}}$, where ${{Adj}^{R_{i}}}$ and ${D^{R_{i}}}$ denote the corresponding adjacency matrix and degree of the relation ${R_{i}}$ respectively matrix. It can be seen that ${P^{R_{i}}}$ is affected by the number of neighbors, so ${P_{vu}^{R_{i}}}$ can be understood as the probability of passing through the relation ${R_{i}}$ from node v to node u. For the meta-path ${\Phi}$ transit probability can be calculated as:

At the feature level, based on the assumption that nodes with similar features are more important, this paper uses the calculation of feature similarity between node ${v}$ and node ${u}$ as the basis for feature-based judgment. Given the meta-path ${\Phi}$, for the target type node ${V_{i}\in\mathcal{V}_{A}}$ has:

where ${s_{vu}^{\Phi}}$ denotes the feature vector similarity between node v and node u after normalization under a given meta-path ${\Phi}$, ${h_{i}}$ is the feature vector of node ${V_{i}}$, and ${\left\|\cdot\right\|}$ is the ${L_{2}}$ paradigm function, ${\epsilon}$ is a very small value, to avoid the adverse effect on the subsequent operations when the similarity is 0.

LSPI selects doubly better neighbor nodes in large neighbor paths by feature similarity and topological relationship.

${t_{vu}^{\Phi}\in t_{v}^{\Phi}}$ is the topological and feature importance score of the neighbor ${u\in\mathcal{N}_{v}^{\Phi}}$ of the node ${v}$. LSPI reconstructs the connectivity under the meta-paths based on the calculated importance score.

${C_{v}^{\Phi}}$ is the set of neighbors of node ${v}$ under meta-path ${\Phi}$ with its neighbors ${u\in\mathcal{N}_{v}^{\Phi}}$ after similarity selection, ${Select\_Top(\cdot)}$ function can select the top ${T}$ nodes with the highest value in the similarity vector ${t_{v}^{\Phi}}$, ${T}$ is a set hyperparameter indicating the number of neighbor nodes retained under the meta-path ${\Phi}$.

Since each meta-path contains different semantic information and specific meta-paths can only respond to node information from a single viewpoint, in order to learn more comprehensive node embeddings it is necessary to fuse different meta-paths to enrich the node feature representation. Taking the node embeddings ${H={H^{\mathrm{\Phi}_{1}},...,H^{\mathrm{\Phi}_{p}}}}$ as inputs, and LSPI employs subgraph-level attention to aggregate the embeddings learned from different meta-paths.

Where ${W_{H}}$ is the weight matrix, ${b_{H}}$ is the bias vector, ${q_{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{{1\times d}^{\prime}}}$ is the graph level attention vector, ${\beta_{i}}$ is the meta-paths ${\mathrm{\Phi}_{i}}$ contribution to a particular task. ${Z}$ is the final feature embedding after fusing different semantics.

For semi-supervised node classification task this paper uses cross entropy loss to optimize the model:

where ${Y_{v_{l}}}$ and ${z_{v_{l}}}$ are the label and embedding vectors of node ${v_{l}}$, respectively, and C is the classifier parameter. The overall learning algorithm is outlined in Algorithm 1.

This paper selects three widely used heterogeneous graph datasets, ACM, IMDB, and Yelp, to evaluate LSPI. The ACM dataset contains a large number of academic papers covering a broad range of disciplines, with its main nodes consisting of papers (P), authors (A), and subjects (S). The IMDB dataset focuses on information from the movie and television industry, with its main nodes consisting of movies (M), directors (D), and actors (A). The Yelp dataset, a large-scale social media data source widely used in natural language processing and recommendation systems, includes user reviews and ratings of businesses, with its main nodes consisting of businesses (B), users (U), services (S), and rating levels (L). The average degree values and relative difference percentages of the meta-paths in the three datasets are shown in Table 1.

In this paper, HAN (2019)[10], MAGNN(2020)[11], HGSL(2021)[25], HPN (2023)[12], ie-HGCN(2023)[26], and SR-HGNN(2023)[27] were selected as the baseline. The performance difference between LSPI and the selected baseline method was compared under different experiments.

This model sets the experimental parameters as follows: middle layer dimension ${d=64}$, learning rate ${lr=0.005}$, optimizer choice Adam, weight decay is ${6.0\times{10}^{-4}}$, feat drop id 0.5, maximum number of iterations is 1000, training and validation set is set to be the total dataset of 10% and 80% of the nodes are used for testing. In terms of meta-paths selection this paper takes into account both meta-paths with different number of neighbors, specifically the ACM dataset selects PAP, PSPSP, PAPAP (PSP is the same as PSPSP and therefore only one of them is selected); the IMDB dataset selects MAM, MAMAM, MDMDM (MDM is the same as MDMDM and therefore only one of them is selected); the Yelp dataset set chooses BUB, BUBUB, BSBSB, BLBLB (BSB is the same as BSBSB and BLB is the same as BLBLB, so only one of them is chosen, respectively).

In terms of large and small neighbor path division, due to the characteristics of different datasets, different parameters ${\tau}$ are set for different datasets. Specifically, for the ACM dataset, with ${\tau=30}$, the large neighborhood paths identified by the path discriminator are PSPSP, PAPAP. For the IMDB dataset, with ${\tau=200}$, the large neighborhood path identified is MAMAM. For the Yelp dataset, with ${\tau=100}$, the large neighborhood paths identified are BUBUB, BSBSB. The large and small neighbor paths corresponding to different ${\tau}$ values are shown in Table II. The number of nodes selected from large neighborhood paths, T, is uniformly set to 500 for all datasets. In part 5.7, this article will study the impact of different ${\tau}$ and T values on the model. In part 5.8, this article will look at not setting the ${\tau}$ value and dividing all paths into large neighbor paths and all into small neighbor paths. Regarding the changes in model performance, this article will further study the selection of T value in Section 5.11. The big and small neighbor paths corresponding to different ${\tau}$ are shown in Table 2.

To evaluate the performance of the LSPI model in multi-label classification tasks, the target node features generated by each model were embedded into SVM classifiers with different training ratios and evaluated using Micro-F1 and Macro-F1. The experimental results are shown in Table 3.

As shown in Table 3, LSPI consistently outperforms baseline methods under different training ratios and achieves significant performance improvements. Specifically, at a training ratio of 80%, LSPI improves by 1.19% and 1.15% on the ACM dataset compared to HAN, by 3.86% and 3.97% on the IMDB dataset, and by 22.65% and 12.14% on the Yelp dataset. Compared to ie-HGCN, LSPI improves by 3.33% and 3.69% on the IMDB dataset and by 2.65% and 2.9% on the Yelp dataset. Compared to HPN, LSPI improves by 5.05% and 5.13% on the IMDB dataset and by 3.84% and 3.44% on the Yelp dataset. We attribute this to LSPI’s ability to effectively filter out noisy information before feature aggregation, resulting in higher aggregation quality.

To divide the nodes in the dataset into different clusters or groups, we evaluate the performance of the LSPI model through a node clustering task. The learned node embeddings are used as input to the clustering model. We use the K-means algorithm for clustering and evaluate the clustering performance based on Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) and Adjusted Rand Index (ARI). The experimental results are shown in Table 4.

It can be seen from Table 4 that LSPI has achieved optimal results in clustering performance on different data sets, especially compared with ie-HGCN, it has achieved a 44% performance improvement on ACM’s ARI and a 26% performance improvement on NMI. The performance improvement reached 50.06% and 63.55% respectively on Yelp; compared with other models, it also achieved significant improvements on the three data sets, which further demonstrates the superiority of the LSPI method.

In this section, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) [28] will be used to map the node embedding of the ACM data set into a two-dimensional space, and three colors will be used to mark different nodes. The experimental results are shown in Figure5.

In order to view the performance of different modules of LSPI, this paper deletes the large neighbor path aggregation module (LSPI-w/o-L) and the small neighbor path aggregation module (LSPI-w/o-S) to see the impact of different modules on model performance. After removing one of the modules, all meta-paths will be directly sent to another module for feature aggregation without going through the discriminator. For other settings, refer to Section 5.2.

As can be seen from Figure 6, the performance of LSPI-w/o-S after de-noising with the large neighbor path module in ACM and Yelp is significantly better than that of LSPI-w/o-L which directly aggregate neighbors based on meta paths, indicating that the large neighbor path aggregation module has achieved remarkable results in removing noise nodes. However, in terms of IMDB data set, the performance of LSPI-w/o-S decreases significantly compared with that of LSPI-w/o-L, indicating that LSPI-w/o-L module also plays a key role in improving model performance. At the same time, the accuracy of LSPI-W /o-B and LSPI-W /o-S on all data sets is lower than that of LSPI, which further proves that the large neighbor path module can effectively shield the noise information in the meta-path, but it is not conducive to preserving the original topological relationship of the HIN. Therefore, it is the best choice to keep both the large neighbor path module and the small neighbor path aggregation module.

Furthermore, this paper examines the impact of two hyperparameters on the model’s performance: the parameter ${\tau}$ for the division of large and small neighborhood paths, and the number of neighbor nodes ${T}$ selected from the large neighborhood paths. ${\tau}$ determines the division between large and small neighborhood paths, while ${T}$ determines the final number of nodes retained in the large neighborhood paths. This paper investigates the effect of different values for these two parameters on model performance. For ${\tau}$, various values are selected to divide the meta-paths into different categories, and the corresponding large and small neighborhood paths for different values are shown in Figure 7. For ${T}$, the values ${\left\{100,300,500,700,1000\right\}}$ are set to observe the impact of different node counts on model accuracy. The experimental results are shown in Fig.6. In Section 5.11, this paper will further study the optimal value for ${T}$ and provide recommendations.

It can be seen from Fig.6 that the division of the path (${\tau}$) and the selection of the number of neighbor nodes (${T}$) have a great impact on the model performance. On the three data sets, the performance is best when the value of ${T}$ is distributed in the 300-500 range. This is because having too few neighbors reduces the model’s learning capacity, while having too many neighbors decreases performance due to the increase in noisy nodes. Therefore, the appropriate number of neighbor nodes has an important impact on the performance of the model. At the same time, it can be seen that the difference in the highest accuracy of the models on the ACM and Yelp data sets is not obvious under different ${\tau}$ values. We believes that this is because the nodes under the LargePaths of the two data sets have strong correlation and less noise information, so the difference in the highest accuracy of the model under different ${\tau}$ values is small. In addition, the IMDB data set performance is similar under different ${T}$ values. This is due to the small number of neighbors in the meta-path and the similar neighbor nodes retained under different ${T}$ values after feature and topology selection.

Furthermore, this paper examines the performance variations of the model under large neighborhood paths and small neighborhood paths. Specifically, the model variant LSPI-w/o-S is used as the experimental subject. Due to the inability to uniformly measure meta-paths with significant semantic differences, only meta-paths with similar semantics are selected as inputs to observe the performance variations of the model under large neighborhood paths. The selected meta-paths for the three datasets are PAP, PAPAP, MAM, MAMAM, and BUB, BUBUB, respectively. The detailed experimental results are shown in Table 5.

Considering the removal of neighbor nodes in the large neighborhood path module, this section further verifies the robustness of the model. We randomly deleted ${1/5,1/10,1/20,1/50}$ of the nodes and their adjacent edges in the ACM dataset to create four new datasets, denoted as ACM_5, ACM_10, ACM_20, and ACM_50. These datasets were then input into LSPI and HAN to test the robustness of the models The detailed experimental results are shown in Figure 8.

From Figure 8, it can be observed that the more nodes are deleted, the more significant the performance decline of the model. However, across all four experimental results, LSPI consistently outperforms HAN. Additionally, it can be seen that the rate of decline for LSPI is significantly lower than that of HAN, indicating that LSPI has stronger resistance to interference.

To provide the optimal reference values for T under different datasets, this paper, based on Section 5.7, selects the highest accuracy value of ${\tau}$, and further studies the model performance using four criteria(D_Max, D_Min, D_Avg, D_Med). These criteria represent the maximum degree, minimum degree, average degree, and median degree of all large neighborhood paths selected under the designated ${\tau}$ value. The specific information is shown in Table6. In the experiments, the decimal places of D_Avg will be rounded.

The experimental results are shown in Table 7. Although the model accuracy under the four criteria did not exceed the highest value in Section 5.7, it can be observed that when ${T}$ is set to D_Avg and D_Med, the model achieves higher accuracy scores across all datasets. Therefore, this paper suggests that ${T}$ should lean towards the average degree and median degree of large neighborhood paths.