Equivariance Everywhere All At Once: A Recipe for Graph Foundation Models
Abstract
Graph machine learning architectures are typically tailored to specific tasks on specific datasets, which hinders their broader applicability. This has led to a new quest in graph machine learning: how to build graph foundation models capable of generalizing across arbitrary graphs and features? In this work, we present a recipe for designing graph foundation models for node-level tasks from first principles. The key ingredient underpinning our study is a systematic investigation of the symmetries that a graph foundation model must respect. In a nutshell, we argue that label permutation-equivariance alongside feature permutation-invariance are necessary in addition to the common node permutation-equivariance on each local neighborhood of the graph. To this end, we first characterize the space of linear transformations that are equivariant to permutations of nodes and labels, and invariant to permutations of features. We then prove that the resulting network is a universal approximator on multisets that respect the aforementioned symmetries. Our recipe uses such layers on the multiset of features induced by the local neighborhood of the graph to obtain a class of graph foundation models for node property prediction. We validate our approach through extensive experiments on 29 real-world node classification datasets, demonstrating both strong zero-shot empirical performance and consistent improvement as the number of training graphs increases.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 12 datasets 6 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 | |
| 44 | GAT | 0.8897
±0.0014 best reported | |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 | |
| 852 | TS-Mean | 0.6578
±0.0228 | This paper |
| 853 | TS-GAT | 0.6560
±0.0274 | This paper |
| 854 | GraphAny | 0.6556
±0.0186 | This paper |
| 855 | MeanGNN | 0.6550
±0.0175 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 | |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 657 | GraphAny | 0.6888
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 667 | TS-GAT | 0.6870
±0.0048 | This paper |
| 668 | TS-Mean | 0.6866
±0.0019 | This paper |
| 771 | MeanGNN | 0.6506
±0.0130 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 | |
| 20 | GAT | 0.9233
±0.0018 best reported | |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 758 | GraphAny | 0.7646
±0.0008 | This paper |
| 788 | TS-GAT | 0.7546
±0.0086 | This paper |
| 800 | TS-Mean | 0.7498
±0.0056 | This paper |
| 805 | MeanGNN | 0.7456
±0.0013 | This paper |
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 211 | GAT | 0.8162
±0.0645 | prev best: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 294 | MeanGNN | 0.7676
±0.0148 | This paper |
| 340 | TS-GAT | 0.7405
±0.0410 | This paper |
| 347 | TS-Mean | 0.7351
±0.0401 | This paper |
| 354 | GraphAny | 0.7297
±0.0271 best reported | best today: Can TabPFN Compete with GNNs for Node Classification via Graph Tabularization? (LoG 2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 138 | SAGE | 0.8269 | |
| 158 | GAT | 0.8190
±0.0540 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) |
| 273 | TS-GAT | 0.7135
±0.0452 | This paper |
| 294 | TS-Mean | 0.6865
±0.0242 | This paper |
| 346 | MeanGNN | 0.6378
±0.0148 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 68 | GraphSAGE | 0.3899
±0.0085 | |
| 182 | GAT | 0.3605
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling (NeurIPS 2022) |
| 300 | MeanGNN | 0.3203
±0.0029 | This paper |
| 378 | TS-GAT | 0.2880
±0.0212 | This paper |
| 384 | GraphAny | 0.2860
±0.0021 best reported | best today: Can TabPFN Compete with GNNs for Node Classification via Graph Tabularization? (LoG 2025) |
| 396 | TS-Mean | 0.2809
±0.0093 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 85 | GraphAny | 0.6540
±0.0163 | This paper |
| 88 | TS-Mean | 0.6529
±0.0297 | This paper |
| 169 | MLP | 0.5429 | |
| 279 | DSS-Mean | 0.2706
±0.0370 | This paper |
| 287 | MeanGNN | 0.2311
±0.0452 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 67 | GAT | 0.5630
±0.0220 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) |
| 93 | GraphAny | 0.4974
±0.0047 | This paper |
| 130 | MeanGNN | 0.4332
±0.0066 | This paper |
| 149 | TS-Mean | 0.4181
±0.0080 | This paper |
| 172 | MLP | 0.3930
±0.0079 | |
| 181 | TS-GAT | 0.3829
±0.0429 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 53 | GAT | 0.8430
±0.0370 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 63 | GCN | 0.8310
±0.0320 | |
| 114 | MeanGNN | 0.7412
±0.1220 | This paper |
| 145 | TS-GAT | 0.6588
±0.0986 | This paper |
Heterophily Benchmark
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dir-Poly | 0.9451
±0.0022 | |
| 2 | D-CDE | 0.9387
±0.0041 | |
| 3 | LargeScaleNet | 0.9358
±0.0024 | |
| 26 | GraphSAGE | 0.9106
±0.0027 | |
| 135 | MLP | 0.6665
±0.0047 | |
| 142 | TS-Mean | 0.6529
±0.0297 | This paper |
| 146 | GraphAny | 0.6460
±0.0169 | This paper |
| 217 | DSS-Mean | 0.2369
±0.0633 | This paper |
| 222 | MeanGNN | 0.2178
±0.0676 | This paper |
Tolokers
Global leaderboard →Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NT* | 0.8591
±0.0083 | |
| 2 | Polynormer | 0.8591
±0.0074 | |
| 3 | Dir-NT | 0.8502
±0.0077 | |
| 7 | GCN | 0.8364
±0.0067 | |
| 21 | MeanGNN | 0.7859
±0.0066 | This paper |
| 22 | GAT | 0.7850
±0.0055 best reported | best today: Learning Posterior Predictive Distributions for Node Classification from Synthetic Graph Priors (ICLR 2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 27 | GraphAny | 0.7820
±0.0003 | This paper |
| 28 | MLP | 0.7816
±0.0002 | |
| 29 | TS-Mean | 0.7812
±0.0009 | This paper |
| 31 | TS-GAT | 0.7801
±0.0023 | This paper |
Questions
Global leaderboard →Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MLP | 0.9733
±0.0006 | |
| 2 | AGS-GNN | 0.9727 | |
| 3 | MeanGNN | 0.9716
±0.0006 | This paper |
| 4 | GCN | 0.9715
±0.0004 | |
| 5 | GAT | 0.9713
±0.0005 | prev best: Fully-inductive Node Classification on Arbitrary Graphs (ICLR 2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 7 | GraphAny | 0.9710 best reported | best at pub: Fully-inductive Node Classification on Arbitrary Graphs (ICLR 2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 9 | TS-Mean | 0.9702
±0.0001 | This paper |
| 10 | TS-GAT | 0.9702
±0.0001 | This paper |
