WWW 2025

Graph Wave Networks

Juwei Yue, Haikuo Li, Jiawei Sheng, Yihan Guo, Xinghua Zhang, Chuan Zhou, Tingwen Liu, Li Guo

Main figure for Graph Wave Networks

Abstract

Dynamics modeling has been introduced as a novel paradigm in message passing (MP) of graph neural networks (GNNs). Existing methods consider MP between nodes as a heat diffusion process, and leverage heat equation to model the temporal evolution of nodes in the embedding space. However, heat equation can hardly depict the wave nature of graph signals in graph signal processing. Besides, heat equation is essentially a partial differential equation (PDE) involving a first partial derivative of time, whose numerical solution usually has low stability, and leads to inefficient model training. In this paper, we would like to depict more wave details in MP, since graph signals are essentially wave signals that can be seen as a superposition of a series of waves in the form of eigenvector. This motivates us to consider MP as a wave propagation process to capture the temporal evolution of wave signals in the space. Based on wave equation in physics, we innovatively develop a graph wave equation to leverage the wave propagation on graphs. In details, we demonstrate that the graph wave equation can be connected to traditional spectral GNNs, facilitating the design of graph wave networks (GWNs) based on various Laplacians and enhancing the performance of the spectral GNNs. Besides, the graph wave equation is particularly a PDE involving a second partial derivative of time, which has stronger stability on graphs than the heat equation that involves a first partial derivative of time. Additionally, we theoretically prove that the numerical solution derived from the graph wave equation are constantly stable, enabling to significantly enhance model efficiency while ensuring its performance. Extensive experiments show that GWNs achieve state-of-the-art and efficient performance on benchmark datasets, and exhibit outstanding performance in addressing challenging graph problems, such as over-smoothing and heterophily. Our code is available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #145 143 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #145 143 places worse
paper 0.9353 ±0.0058
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #217 209 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #217 209 places worse
paper 0.9304 ±0.0053
20
GRAND
actual #20 vs paper #20
0.9579 ±0.0059
actual #20 vs paper #20
paper 0.9579 ±0.0059
paper 0.9579 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0229
27
GWN-fa
0.9561 ±0.0053
This paper
40
ADC
0.9533 ±0.0027
This paper
42
GWN-sym
0.9531 ±0.0065
This paper
56
GraphSAGE
actual #56 vs paper #75 19 places worse
0.9508 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #75 19 places worse
paper 0.9449 ±0.0055

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9449 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0059
66
FAGCN
actual #66 vs paper #163 97 places worse
0.9489 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #163 97 places worse
paper 0.9341
paper 0.9341 Δ at pub 0.0148
71
GADC
0.9470 ±0.0035
This paper
82
CGNN
actual #82 vs paper #82
0.9435 ±0.0056
actual #82 vs paper #82
paper 0.9435 ±0.0056
paper 0.9435 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0295
141
GDC
0.9356 ±0.0033
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #286 284 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #286 284 places worse
paper 0.8609 ±0.0061
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #213 210 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #213 210 places worse
paper 0.8789 ±0.0082
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #184 138 places worse
0.9120 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #184 138 places worse
paper 0.8853 ±0.0070
paper 0.8853 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0267 Δ today 0.0267
67
GWN-fa
0.9062 ±0.0061
This paper
94
GWN-sym
0.9010 ±0.0087
This paper
126
FAGCN
actual #126 vs paper #243 117 places worse
0.8968 ±0.0097
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #243 117 places worse
paper 0.8732
paper 0.8732 Δ at pub 0.0236
144
GRAND
actual #144 vs paper #144
0.8937 ±0.0041
actual #144 vs paper #144
paper 0.8937 ±0.0041
paper 0.8937 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0527
178
ADC
0.8862 ±0.0056
This paper
181
GDC
0.8856 ±0.0038
This paper
195
CGNN
actual #195 vs paper #195
0.8831 ±0.0065
actual #195 vs paper #195
paper 0.8831 ±0.0065
paper 0.8831 ±0.0065 Δ at pub 0.0801
221
GADC
0.8778 ±0.0054
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
This paper
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
This paper
4
CGNN
actual #4 vs paper #4
0.9621 ±0.0032
actual #4 vs paper #4
paper 0.9621 ±0.0032
paper 0.9621 ±0.0032 Δ at pub 0.0391
5
GADC
0.9616 ±0.0029
This paper
6
GraphSAGE
actual #6 vs paper #6
0.9593 ±0.0025
actual #6 vs paper #6
paper 0.9593 ±0.0025
paper 0.9593 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0333
7
ADC
0.9582 ±0.0015
This paper
9
FAGCN
0.9579
This paper
10
GRAND
actual #10 vs paper #10
0.9577 ±0.0028
actual #10 vs paper #10
paper 0.9577 ±0.0028
paper 0.9577 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0518
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #12
0.9514 ±0.0025
actual #12 vs paper #12
paper 0.9514 ±0.0025

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9514 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0154
16
GDC
0.9482 ±0.0022
This paper
21
GAT
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.9437 ±0.0028
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.9437 ±0.0028

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9437 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0057
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
138
GIN
0.9140 ±0.0020

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
5
ACM-GCN
actual #5 vs paper #81 76 places worse
0.9557 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #81 76 places worse
paper 0.8838 ±0.0343
paper 0.8838 ±0.0343 Δ at pub 0.0672 Δ today 0.0719
29
GWN-fa
0.9294 ±0.0445
This paper
30
GPR-GNN
actual #30 vs paper #39 9 places worse
0.9291 ±0.0132
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #39 9 places worse
paper 0.9189 ±0.0408

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9189 ±0.0408 Δ at pub 0.0102
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
39
GGCN
actual #39 vs paper #39
0.9213 ±0.0305
actual #39 vs paper #39
paper 0.9213 ±0.0305
paper 0.9213 ±0.0305 Δ at pub 0.0527
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #126 86 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #126 86 places worse
paper 0.8590 ±0.0353

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8590 ±0.0353 Δ at pub 0.0599
48
Ordered GNN
0.9082 ±0.0418
This paper
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #120 67 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0365
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #120 67 places worse
paper 0.8602 ±0.0478

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8602 ±0.0478 Δ at pub 0.0398 Δ today 0.0398
55
GWN-sym
0.8985 ±0.0505
This paper
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #131 70 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #131 70 places worse
paper 0.8557 ±0.0475

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8557 ±0.0475 Δ at pub 0.0404
189
SAGE
0.8269
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #251 40 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #251 40 places worse
paper 0.7959 ±0.0921

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7959 ±0.0921 Δ at pub 0.0123 Δ today 0.0203
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #257
0.7933 ±0.0447
actual #257 vs paper #257
paper 0.7933 ±0.0447

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7933 ±0.0447 Δ at pub 0.0093
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
15
GWN-fa
0.4203 ±0.0159
This paper
16
ACM-GCN
actual #16 vs paper #117 101 places worse
0.4198 ±0.0089
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #117 101 places worse
paper 0.3731 ±0.0109
paper 0.3731 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.0429 Δ today 0.0467
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
50
GWN-sym
0.3997 ±0.0172
This paper
53
GPR-GNN
actual #53 vs paper #223 170 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #223 170 places worse
paper 0.3516 ±0.0090
paper 0.3516 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0475 Δ today 0.0476
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
91
Ordered GNN
0.3799 ±0.0170
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published