Equivariance Everywhere All At Once: A Recipe for Graph Foundation Models

Ben Finkelshtein, I. Ceylan, Michael M. Bronstein, Ron Levie

Main figure for 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.

Proposed method: GraphAny

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

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #44 vs paper #854 810 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #854 810 places worse
paper 0.6555 ±0.0282
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #795 760 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #795 760 places worse
paper 0.6392 ±0.0084
paper 0.6392 ±0.0084 Δ at pub 0.1688
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #20 vs paper #796 776 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #796 776 places worse
paper 0.7512 ±0.0089
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

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #211 vs paper #211
0.8162 ±0.0645
actual #211 vs paper #211
paper 0.8162 ±0.0645

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8162 ±0.0645 Δ at pub 0.0080
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
actual #354 vs paper #378 24 places worse
0.7297 ±0.0271
best reported
actual #354 vs paper #378 24 places worse
paper 0.7135 ±0.0216

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7135 ±0.0216 Δ today 0.0162
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #158 vs paper #285 127 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #285 127 places worse
paper 0.6973 ±0.0226
paper 0.6973 ±0.0226 Δ at pub 0.1217
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #182 vs paper #293 111 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #293 111 places worse
paper 0.3259 ±0.0083
paper 0.3259 ±0.0083 Δ at pub 0.0346
300
MeanGNN
0.3203 ±0.0029
This paper
378
TS-GAT
0.2880 ±0.0212
This paper
384
GraphAny
actual #384 vs paper #405 21 places worse
0.2860 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #384 vs paper #405 21 places worse
paper 0.2754 ±0.0020
paper 0.2754 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0106
396
TS-Mean
0.2809 ±0.0093
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #67 vs paper #181 114 places worse
0.5630 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #67 vs paper #181 114 places worse
paper 0.3816 ±0.0104
paper 0.3816 ±0.0104 Δ at pub 0.1814
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #53 vs paper #114 61 places worse
0.8430 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #114 61 places worse
paper 0.7333 ±0.0827

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7333 ±0.0827 Δ at pub 0.1097
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

#ModelAccuracy ↑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 →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #22 vs paper #26 4 places worse
0.7850 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #26 4 places worse
paper 0.7822 ±0.0037

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7822 ±0.0037 Δ today 0.0028
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 →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #5 vs paper #5
0.9713 ±0.0005
actual #5 vs paper #5
paper 0.9713 ±0.0005

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9713 ±0.0005 Δ at pub 0.0002
7
GraphAny
actual #7 vs paper #7
0.9710
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #7
paper 0.9707 ±0.0003

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9707 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0003
9
TS-Mean
0.9702 ±0.0001
This paper
10
TS-GAT
0.9702 ±0.0001
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere