Relation-Aware Graph Foundation Model

Jianxiang Yu, Jiapeng Zhu, Hao Qian, Ziqi Liu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Xiang Li

Main figure for Relation-Aware Graph Foundation Model

Abstract

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generalization capabilities across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Similarly, graph foundation models (GFMs) have emerged as a promising direction in graph learning, aiming to generalize across diverse datasets through large-scale pre-training. However, unlike language models that rely on explicit token representations, graphs lack a well-defined unit for generalization, making it challenging to design effective pre-training strategies. In this work, we propose REEF, a novel framework that leverages relation tokens as the basic units for GFMs. Inspired by the token vocabulary in LLMs, we construct a relation vocabulary of relation tokens to store relational information within graphs. To accommodate diverse relations, we introduce two hypernetworks that adaptively generate the parameters of aggregators and classifiers in graph neural networks based on relation tokens. In addition, we design another hypernetwork to construct dataset-specific projectors and incorporate a dataset-level feature bias into the initial node representations, enhancing flexibility across different datasets with the same relation. Further, we adopt graph data augmentation and a mixed-dataset pre-training strategy, allowing REEF to capture relational diversity more effectively and exhibit strong generalization capabilities. Extensive experiments show that REEF significantly outperforms existing methods on both pre-training and transfer learning tasks, underscoring its potential as a powerful foundation model for graph-based applications.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Knowledge Graphs

WN18RR

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is MRR. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OFA-llama2-13b
0.9814 ±0.0025
2
OFA-llama2-7b
0.9808 ±0.0016
3
OFA-e5
0.9784 ±0.0035
7
REEF
0.9470
This paper
8
REEF-FP
0.9429
This paper
10
REEF-LM
0.9406
This paper
11
GraphMAE
actual #11 vs paper #28 17 places worse
0.9387 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #28 17 places worse
paper 0.7899
12
REEF-AGU
0.9378
This paper
15
REEF-FB
0.9218
This paper
16
GFT
0.9191
This paper
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #30 12 places worse
0.8677 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #30 12 places worse
paper 0.7379
19
GAT
actual #19 vs paper #28 9 places worse
0.8552 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #28 9 places worse
paper 0.8016
21
GIANT
0.8436
This paper
22
Linear
actual #22 vs paper #28 6 places worse
0.8433 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #28 6 places worse
paper 0.7850
26
GraphSAGE
0.8298 ±0.0022
28
GIN
actual #28 vs paper #30 2 places worse
0.7402
actual #28 vs paper #30 2 places worse
paper 0.7402
29
DGI
0.7575
This paper
30
BGRL
0.7544
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere