TMLR 2025

Flow-Attentional Graph Neural Networks

Pascal Plettenberg, D. Köhler, Bernhard Sick, Josephine M. Thomas

Main figure for Flow-Attentional Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have become essential for learning from graph-structured data. However, existing GNNs do not consider the conservation law inherent in graphs associated with a flow of physical resources, such as electrical current in power grids or traffic in transportation networks, which can lead to reduced model performance. To address this, we propose flow attention, which adapts existing graph attention mechanisms to satisfy Kirchhoff’s first law. Furthermore, we discuss how this modification influences the expressivity and identify sets of non-isomorphic graphs that can be discriminated by flow attention but not by standard attention. Through extensive experiments on two flow graph datasets—electronic circuits and power grids—we demonstrate that flow attention enhances the performance of attention-based GNNs on both graph-level classification and regression tasks.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

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
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
112
FlowTC
0.7770 ±0.0070
This paper
122
TC
0.7750 ±0.0070
This paper
140
GAT
actual #140 vs paper #242 102 places worse
0.7717 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #140 vs paper #242 102 places worse
paper 0.7490 ±0.0370

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7490 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.0227
142
GATv2
actual #142 vs paper #247 105 places worse
0.7715 ±0.0155
best reported
actual #142 vs paper #247 105 places worse
paper 0.7450 ±0.0190
paper 0.7450 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0265
208
FlowGAT
0.7590 ±0.0060
This paper
212
FlowGATv2
0.7580 ±0.0150
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)