JMLR 2025

Enhancing Graph Representation Learning with Localized Topological Features

Zuoyu Yan, Qi Zhao, Ze Ye, Teng Ma, Liangcai Gao, Zhi Tang, Yusu Wang, Chao Chen

Main figure for Enhancing Graph Representation Learning with Localized Topological Features

Abstract

Representation learning on graphs is a fundamental problem that can be crucial in various tasks. Graph neural networks, the dominant approach for graph representation learning, are limited in their representation power. Therefore, it can be beneficial to explicitly extract and incorporate high-order topological and geometric information into these models. In this paper, we propose a principled approach to extract the rich connectivity information of graphs based on the theory of persistent homology. Our method utilizes the topological features to enhance the representation learning of graph neural networks and achieve state-of-the-art performance on various node classification and link prediction benchmarks. We also explore the option of end-to-end learning of the topological features, i.e., treating topological computation as a differentiable operator during learning. Our theoretical analysis and empirical study provide insights and potential guidelines for employing topological features in graph learning tasks. Keywords: Persistent Homology, Topological Data Analysis, Graph Neural Network, Graph Representation Learning, Graph Isomorphism

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 12 baseline values reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
0.9004
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0590 Δ today 0.0597
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #688 547 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #688 547 places worse
paper 0.7920
paper 0.7920 Δ at pub 0.0788
262
Graph U-Net
actual #262 vs paper #465 203 places worse
0.8440 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #262 vs paper #465 203 places worse
paper 0.8250
354
GCN(+PI+)
0.8360 ±0.0120
This paper
384
ARMA
actual #384 vs paper #486 102 places worse
0.8340
best reported
actual #384 vs paper #486 102 places worse
paper 0.8230 ±0.0050
452
PEGN
0.8270 ±0.0040
This paper
467
CGNN-EXP
0.8250 ±0.0060
This paper
508
MoNet
actual #508 vs paper #558 50 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #508 vs paper #558 50 places worse
paper 0.8170
best at pub: GRAND: Graph Neural Diffusion (ICML 2021)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8170 Δ at pub 0.0050
699
WLCN
0.7890
This paper
716
HGCN
0.7800 ±0.0100
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0830
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #538 477 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #538 477 places worse
paper 0.7120
paper 0.7120 Δ at pub 0.0803
304
Graph U-Net
actual #304 vs paper #457 153 places worse
0.7320 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #304 vs paper #457 153 places worse
paper 0.7200
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
376
GCN(+PI+)
0.7260 ±0.0070
This paper
390
ARMA
actual #390 vs paper #481 91 places worse
0.7250
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #481 91 places worse
paper 0.7170 ±0.0060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7170 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0080 Δ today 0.0080
451
CGNN-EXP
0.7210 ±0.0070
This paper
467
PEGN
0.7190 ±0.0050
This paper
540
MoNet
0.7120
This paper
687
HGCN
0.6800 ±0.0060
This paper
706
WLCN
0.6740
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #716 591 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #716 591 places worse
paper 0.7740 ±0.0220
paper 0.7740 ±0.0220 Δ at pub 0.1124
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
217
ARMA
actual #217 vs paper #652 435 places worse
0.8678 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #217 vs paper #652 435 places worse
paper 0.7830 ±0.0080
446
MoNet
actual #446 vs paper #628 182 places worse
0.8006 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #446 vs paper #628 182 places worse
paper 0.7860 ±0.0230

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7860 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0146
490
Graph U-Net
actual #490 vs paper #602 112 places worse
0.7960
best reported
actual #490 vs paper #602 112 places worse
paper 0.7890
paper 0.7890 Δ at pub 0.0070
529
PEGN
0.7940 ±0.0070
This paper
606
CGNN-EXP
0.7890 ±0.0050
This paper
671
WLCN
0.7810
This paper
755
HGCN
0.7650 ±0.0060
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)