Aggregation-aware MLP: An Unsupervised Approach for Graph Message-passing

Xuanting Xie, Bingheng Li, Erlin Pan, Zhao Kang, Wenyu Chen

Main figure for Aggregation-aware MLP: An Unsupervised Approach for Graph Message-passing

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have become a dominant approach to learning graph representations, primarily because of their message-passing mechanisms. However, GNNs typically adopt a fixed aggregator function—such as Mean, Max, or Sum—without principled reasoning behind the selection. This rigidity, especially in the presence of heterophily, often leads to poor, problem-dependent performance. Although some attempts address this by designing more sophisticated aggregation functions, these methods tend to rely heavily on labeled data, which is often scarce in real-world tasks. In this work, we propose a novel unsupervised framework, ``Aggregation-aware Multilayer Perceptron'' (AMLP), which shifts the paradigm from directly crafting aggregation functions to making MLP adaptive to aggregation. Our lightweight approach consists of two key steps: First, we utilize a graph reconstruction method that facilitates high-order grouping effects, and second, we employ a single-layer network to encode varying degrees of heterophily, thereby improving the capacity and applicability of the model. Extensive experiments on node clustering and classification demonstrate the superior performance of AMLP, highlighting its potential for diverse graph learning scenarios.

Proposed method: AMLP

Benchmark Results

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

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
28
GPRGNN
actual #28 vs paper #269 241 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #269 241 places worse
paper 0.7838 ±0.0436
paper 0.7838 ±0.0436 Δ at pub 0.1457
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
39
GGCN
actual #39 vs paper #148 109 places worse
0.9213 ±0.0305
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #148 109 places worse
paper 0.8486 ±0.0455
best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.8486 ±0.0455 Δ at pub 0.0727
45
AMLP
0.9133 ±0.0374
This paper
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
89
PCNet
0.8811 ±0.0217
This paper
122
RAW-GNN
0.8595 ±0.0415
This paper
141
GloGNN
actual #141 vs paper #167 26 places worse
0.8524 ±0.0490
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #167 26 places worse
paper 0.8405 ±0.0490

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8405 ±0.0490 Δ at pub 0.0027 Δ today 0.0119
143
CAGNN
0.8513 ±0.0573
This paper
324
HeterGCL
0.7470 ±0.0360
This paper
351
MVGRL
actual #351 vs paper #480 129 places worse
0.7301 ±0.0552
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #480 129 places worse
paper 0.6170 ±0.0390
369
GRACE
actual #369 vs paper #457 88 places worse
0.7215 ±0.0453
best reported
actual #369 vs paper #457 88 places worse
paper 0.6350 ±0.0260
409
BGRL
actual #409 vs paper #434 25 places worse
0.6580 ±0.0270
actual #409 vs paper #434 25 places worse
paper 0.6580 ±0.0270

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6580 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0002
448
SELENE
actual #448 vs paper #451 3 places worse
0.6430
best reported
actual #448 vs paper #451 3 places worse
paper 0.6400 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6400 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0030
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
15
GGCN
actual #15 vs paper #79 64 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0367
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #79 64 places worse
paper 0.8568 ±0.0663

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8568 ±0.0663 Δ today 0.0662
22
GPRGNN
actual #22 vs paper #177 155 places worse
0.9157 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #177 155 places worse
paper 0.8027 ±0.0811

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8027 ±0.0811 Δ at pub 0.1130
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
73
AMLP
0.8605 ±0.0516
This paper
74
GloGNN
0.8595 ±0.0510
This paper
94
RAW-GNN
0.8486 ±0.0543
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
152
PCNet
0.8216 ±0.0270
This paper
163
CAGNN
0.8135 ±0.0547
This paper
225
HeterGCL
0.7550 ±0.0280
This paper
340
MVGRL
actual #340 vs paper #424 84 places worse
0.6430
best reported
actual #340 vs paper #424 84 places worse
paper 0.5620 ±0.0240
415
BGRL
actual #415 vs paper #420 5 places worse
0.5730
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #420 5 places worse
paper 0.5670 ±0.0210

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5670 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0060
423
GRACE
actual #423 vs paper #423
0.5640 ±0.0210
actual #423 vs paper #423
paper 0.5640 ±0.0210

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5640 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0001

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
205
AMLP
0.3604
This paper
208
RGSL
0.3457
This paper
210
DGCN
0.3342
This paper
211
DCRN
0.3257
This paper
215
CGC
0.3016
This paper
219
ARVGA
0.2289
This paper
220
RWR
0.2273
This paper
221
GMM
0.2190
This paper
223
DAEGC
0.2123
This paper
225
MSGA
0.1931
This paper
227
FGC
0.1446
This paper

Hypergraph Benchmarks

AMAP

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 13 values on ACC and 12 values on NMI .

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultACC ↑NMI ↑Paper
1
DCRN
0.7994
—
—
2
AMLP
—
0.7980
0.6977
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6977
This paper
3
two unsupervised strategies
0.7850 ± 0.0045
—
—
4
SCGC
—
0.7748
0.6767
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6767
This paper
5
CCGC
—
0.7725
0.6744
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6744
This paper
6
DFCN
—
0.7688
0.6921
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6921
This paper
7
DyFSS
—
0.7686
0.6778
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6778
This paper
8
DGCN
—
0.7607
0.6613
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6613
This paper
9
AGE
—
0.7598
—
Accuracy —
NMI —
This paper
10
CGC
—
0.7302
0.6326
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6326
This paper
11
MCGC
—
0.7164
0.6154
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6154
This paper
12
FGC
—
0.7104
0.6102
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6102
This paper
13
SSGC
—
0.6023
0.6037
Accuracy —
NMI 0.6037
This paper
14
SDCN
—
0.5344
0.4485
Accuracy —
NMI 0.4485
This paper
15
MVGRL
—
0.4519
0.3689
Accuracy —
NMI 0.3689
This paper

UAT

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is F1. The paper reports 0 values on F1 , 13 values on ACC and 13 values on NMI .

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑ defaultACC ↑NMI ↑Paper
1
AGCN
0.6084
—
—
2
the idea
—
0.5840
0.2879
F1 —
NMI 0.2879
This paper
3
two unsupervised strategies
0.5681 ± 0.0034
—
—
4
SCGC
—
0.5658
0.2807
F1 —
NMI 0.2807
This paper
5
CCGC
—
0.5634
0.2815
F1 —
NMI 0.2815
This paper
6
FGC
—
0.5303
0.2706
F1 —
NMI 0.2706
This paper
7
AGE
—
0.5237
0.2364
F1 —
NMI 0.2364
This paper
8
DGCN
—
0.5227
0.2354
F1 —
NMI 0.2354
This paper
9
SDCN
—
0.5225
0.2161
F1 —
NMI 0.2161
This paper
10
DyFSS
—
0.5143
0.2552
F1 —
NMI 0.2552
This paper
11
CGC
—
0.4958
0.1749
F1 —
NMI 0.1749
This paper
12
MVGRL
—
0.4416
0.2153
F1 —
NMI 0.2153
This paper
13
MCGC
—
0.4193
0.1664
F1 —
NMI 0.1664
This paper
14
SSGC
—
0.3674
0.0804
F1 —
NMI 0.0804
This paper
15
DFCN
—
0.3361
0.2649
F1 —
NMI 0.2649
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