ICLR 2025

Learning Efficient Positional Encodings with Graph Neural Networks

Charilaos I. Kanatsoulis, Evelyn Choi, Stephanie Jegelka, J. Leskovec, Alejandro Ribeiro

Main figure for Learning Efficient Positional Encodings with Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Positional encodings (PEs) are essential for effective graph representation learning because they provide position awareness in inherently position-agnostic transformer architectures and increase the expressive capacity of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). However, designing powerful and efficient PEs for graphs poses significant challenges due to the absence of canonical node ordering and the scale of the graph. {In this work, we identify four key properties that graph PEs should satisfy}: stability, expressive power, scalability, and genericness. We find that existing eigenvector-based PE methods often fall short of jointly satisfying these criteria. To address this gap, we introduce PEARL, a novel framework of learnable PEs for graphs. Our primary insight is that message-passing GNNs function as nonlinear mappings of eigenvectors, enabling the design of GNN architectures for generating powerful and efficient PEs. A crucial challenge lies in initializing node attributes in a manner that is both expressive and permutation equivariant. We tackle this by initializing GNNs with random node inputs or standard basis vectors, thereby unlocking the expressive power of message-passing operations, while employing statistical pooling functions to maintain permutation equivariance. Our analysis demonstrates that PEARL approximates equivariant functions of eigenvectors with linear complexity, while rigorously establishing its stability and high expressive power. Experimental evaluations show that PEARL outperforms lightweight versions of eigenvector-based PEs and achieves comparable performance to full eigenvector-based PEs, but with one or two orders of magnitude lower complexity. Our code is available at https://github.com/ehejin/Pearl-PE.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
0.2421 ±0.0016
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
19
Graph ViT
actual #19 vs paper #21 2 places worse
0.2449 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #21 2 places worse
paper 0.2450 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2450 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0001
44
R-method
0.2470 ±0.0010
This paper
64
B-method
0.2480 ±0.0010
This paper
85
GPS
actual #85 vs paper #106 21 places worse
0.2500 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #85 vs paper #106 21 places worse
paper 0.2520 ±0.0010
paper 0.2520 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0020
86
SUN
0.2500 ±0.0010
This paper
123
SAN+RWSE
actual #123 vs paper #126 3 places worse
0.2545 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #123 vs paper #126 3 places worse
paper 0.2550 ±0.0010
best at pub: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2550 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0005
155
SAN+LapPE
actual #155 vs paper #155
0.2680 ±0.0040
actual #155 vs paper #155
paper 0.2680 ±0.0040
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2680 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0003
164
GNN-AK+
0.2740
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
28
B-PEARL
1.0000
This paper
29
R-PEARL
1.0000
This paper
1
PPGN
1.0000
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
3
AgentNet
1.0000
8
GCN
1.0000
86
Message-passing GNNs
0.1000
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)