IJCAI 2025

What Can We Learn From MIMO Graph Convolutions?

Andreas Roth, Thomas Liebig

Main figure for What Can We Learn From MIMO Graph Convolutions?

Abstract

Most graph neural networks (GNNs) utilize approximations of the general graph convolution derived in the graph Fourier domain. While GNNs are typically applied in the multi-input multi-output (MIMO) case, the approximations are performed in the single-input single-output (SISO) case. In this work, we first derive the MIMO graph convolution through the convolution theorem and approximate it directly in the MIMO case. We find the key MIMO-specific property of the graph convolution to be operating on multiple computational graphs, or equivalently, applying distinct feature transformations for each pair of nodes. As a localized approximation, we introduce localized MIMO graph convolutions (LMGCs), which generalize many linear message-passing neural networks. For almost every choice of edge weights, we prove that LMGCs with a single computational graph are injective on multisets, and the resulting representations are linearly independent when more than one computational graph is used. Our experimental results confirm that an LMGC can combine the benefits of various methods.

Proposed method: LMGC

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #347 286 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #347 286 places worse
paper 0.7350 ±0.0180
paper 0.7350 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.1611
258
GATv2
actual #258 vs paper #374 116 places worse
0.7929 ±0.0403
best reported
actual #258 vs paper #374 116 places worse
paper 0.7160 ±0.0100
paper 0.7160 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0769
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #383 57 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #383 57 places worse
paper 0.7050 ±0.0110
336
LMGC
0.7420 ±0.0220
This paper
368
ACM
0.7230 ±0.0040
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #299 261 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #299 261 places worse
paper 0.6810 ±0.0190
paper 0.6810 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.2042
138
SAGE
0.8269
177
GATv2
actual #177 vs paper #320 143 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0333
best reported
actual #177 vs paper #320 143 places worse
paper 0.6610 ±0.0060
paper 0.6610 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1423
201
GIN
actual #201 vs paper #320 119 places worse
0.7800 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #320 119 places worse
paper 0.6610 ±0.0100
292
LMGC
0.6890 ±0.0220
This paper
330
ACM
0.6510 ±0.0070
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
56
FAGCN
actual #56 vs paper #184 128 places worse
0.3970
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #184 128 places worse
paper 0.3600 ±0.0030
paper 0.3600 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0370
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
172
LMGC
0.3630 ±0.0040
This paper
194
ACM
0.3580 ±0.0030
This paper
230
GATv2
actual #230 vs paper #230
0.3510 ±0.0020
actual #230 vs paper #230
paper 0.3510 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3510 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0016
266
GIN
actual #266 vs paper #266
0.3410 ±0.0030
actual #266 vs paper #266
paper 0.3410 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3410 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0173
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
0.7033
107
FAGCN
actual #107 vs paper #215 108 places worse
0.6344 ±0.0205
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #215 108 places worse
paper 0.4690 ±0.0050
169
MLP
0.5429
201
LMGC
0.4980 ±0.0080
This paper
214
GATv2
0.4710 ±0.0030
This paper
219
GIN
0.4610 ±0.0040
This paper
224
ACM
0.4550 ±0.0090
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
46
GCN
0.6067
139
FAGCN
actual #139 vs paper #225 86 places worse
0.4259 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #225 86 places worse
paper 0.3460 ±0.0030
169
GIN
actual #169 vs paper #225 56 places worse
0.3951 ±0.0283
best reported
actual #169 vs paper #225 56 places worse
paper 0.3460 ±0.0050
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079
208
LMGC
0.3590 ±0.0050
This paper
218
GATv2
0.3510 ±0.0020
This paper
227
ACM
0.3450 ±0.0010
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
0.9010 ±0.0350
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
60
FAGCN
actual #60 vs paper #76 16 places worse
0.8333
best reported
actual #60 vs paper #76 16 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0180
63
GCN
0.8310 ±0.0320
66
LMGC
0.8140 ±0.0110
This paper
84
GATv2
actual #84 vs paper #84
0.7910 ±0.0200
actual #84 vs paper #84
paper 0.7910 ±0.0200
paper 0.7910 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.2620
86
GIN
actual #86 vs paper #86
0.7900 ±0.0060
actual #86 vs paper #86
paper 0.7900 ±0.0060
113
ACM
0.7420 ±0.0090
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere