NeurIPS 2025

Bridging Theory and Practice in Link Representation with Graph Neural Networks

Veronica Lachi, Francesco Ferrini, A. Longa, Bruno Lepri, Andrea Passerini, Manfred Jaeger

Main figure for Bridging Theory and Practice in Link Representation with Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are widely used to compute representations of node pairs for downstream tasks such as link prediction. Yet, theoretical understanding of their expressive power has focused almost entirely on graph-level representations. In this work, we shift the focus to links and provide the first comprehensive study of GNN expressiveness in link representation. We introduce a unifying framework, the $k_ $-$k_ $-$m$ framework, that subsumes existing message-passing link models and enables formal expressiveness comparisons. Using this framework, we derive a hierarchy of state-of-the-art methods and offer theoretical tools to analyze future architectures. To complement our analysis, we propose a synthetic evaluation protocol comprising the first benchmark specifically designed to assess link-level expressiveness. Finally, we ask: does expressiveness matter in practice? We use a graph symmetry metric that quantifies the difficulty of distinguishing links and show that while expressive models may underperform on standard benchmarks, they significantly outperform simpler ones as symmetry increases, highlighting the need for dataset-aware model selection.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets

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

OGB

ogbl-collab

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports MRR; the dataset default is Hits@50. Values below use MRR only.

Sorted by MRR. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
SEAL
0.0643
This paper
2
GCN
0.0609
This paper
3
BUDDY
0.0567
This paper
4
SAGE
0.0553
This paper
5
Neo-GNN
0.0523
This paper
6
NCN
0.0509
This paper
7
NCNC
0.0473
This paper
8
GAT
0.0418
This paper

ogbl-ddi

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports MRR; the dataset default is Hits@20. Values below use MRR only.

Sorted by MRR. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
GCN
0.1346
This paper
2
GAT
0.1292
This paper
3
NCN
0.1286
This paper
4
SAGE
0.1260
This paper
5
BUDDY
0.1243
This paper
6
Neo-GNN
0.1086
This paper
7
SEAL
0.0999
This paper
8
GAE
0.0349
This paper
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
8
SEAL
actual #8 vs paper #76 68 places worse
0.8767 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #76 68 places worse
paper 0.2060
9
BUDDY
actual #9 vs paper #78 69 places worse
0.8756 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #78 69 places worse
paper 0.1917
11
Neo-GNN
actual #11 vs paper #78 67 places worse
0.8726 ±0.0084
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #78 67 places worse
paper 0.1612
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #77 65 places worse
0.8705 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #77 65 places worse
paper 0.1998
paper 0.1998 Δ at pub 0.6707
30
SAGE
actual #30 vs paper #73 43 places worse
0.8292 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #73 43 places worse
paper 0.2205
32
GraphSAGE
0.8264 ±0.0001
71
MLP
0.3917 ±0.0044
73
NCN
0.2335
This paper
78
NCNC
0.1961
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)