ICML 2025

Positional Encoding meets Persistent Homology on Graphs

Yogesh Verma, Amauri H. Souza, Vikas Garg

Main figure for Positional Encoding meets Persistent Homology on Graphs

Abstract

The local inductive bias of message-passing graph neural networks (GNNs) hampers their ability to exploit key structural information (e.g., connectivity and cycles). Positional encoding (PE) and Persistent Homology (PH) have emerged as two promising approaches to mitigate this issue. PE schemes endow GNNs with location-aware features, while PH methods enhance GNNs with multiresolution topological features. However, a rigorous theoretical characterization of the relative merits and shortcomings of PE and PH has remained elusive. We bridge this gap by establishing that neither paradigm is more expressive than the other, providing novel constructions where one approach fails but the other succeeds. Our insights inform the design of a novel learnable method, PiPE (Persistence-informed Positional Encoding), which is provably more expressive than both PH and PE. PiPE demonstrates strong performance across a variety of tasks (e.g., molecule property prediction, graph classification, and out-of-distribution generalization), thereby advancing the frontiers of graph representation learning. Code is available at https://github.com/Aalto-QuML/PIPE.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
TIGT
0.0140 ±0.0010
2
FloydNet
0.0160
3
GSSC
0.0190 ±0.0010
58
PiPE (RePHINE) [SPE-based]
0.0588 ±0.0070
This paper
60
PiPE (VC) [SPE-based]
0.0599 ±0.0100
This paper
69
GIN
0.0880 ±0.0020

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
35
PiPE
0.7980 ±0.0040
This paper
57
PiPE (RePHINE) with SPE
0.7910 ±0.0030
This paper
81
PiPE (VC) with SPE
0.7850 ±0.0050
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
116
SPE
0.7760 ±0.0040
This paper
190
RW
0.7620 ±0.0070
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)