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.
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
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9672
±0.0147 | |
| 2 | DoG | 0.9660
±0.0210 | |
| 3 | GPF-plus | 0.9583
±0.0419 | |
| 28 | GPRGNN | 0.9295
±0.0131 best reported | best at pub: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) |
| 34 | MLP | 0.9230
±0.0070 | |
| 39 | GGCN | 0.9213
±0.0305 best reported | best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025) |
| 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 | 0.8524
±0.0490 best reported | best at pub: Finding Global Homophily in Graph Neural Networks When Meeting Heterophily (ICML 2022) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 143 | CAGNN | 0.8513
±0.0573 | This paper |
| 324 | HeterGCL | 0.7470
±0.0360 | This paper |
| 351 | MVGRL | 0.7301
±0.0552 best reported | |
| 369 | GRACE | 0.7215
±0.0453 best reported | best at pub: Cross-Domain Graph Data Scaling: A Showcase with Diffusion Models (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 409 | BGRL | 0.6580
±0.0270 | prev best: Cross-Domain Graph Data Scaling: A Showcase with Diffusion Models (NeurIPS 2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 448 | SELENE | 0.6430 best reported | best at pub: Graph Representation Learning via Aggregation Enhancement (2022) 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 | |
| 15 | GGCN | 0.9230
±0.0367 best reported | best at pub: Understanding convolution on graphs via energies (TMLR 2022) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 22 | GPRGNN | 0.9157
±0.0196 best reported | best at pub: Simplified PCNet with Robustness (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 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 | 0.6430 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Smoothing: Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning with Edge Heterophily Discriminating (AAAI 2022) |
| 415 | BGRL | 0.5730 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Smoothing: Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning with Edge Heterophily Discriminating (AAAI 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 423 | GRACE | 0.5640
±0.0210 | prev best: Cross-Domain Graph Data Scaling: A Showcase with Diffusion Models (NeurIPS 2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
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 | |
| 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.
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ default | ACC ↑ | NMI ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DCRN | 0.7994 | —
| — | Accuracy
0.7994 NMI
— |
| 2 | AMLP | — | 0.7980 | 0.6977 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6977 |
| 3 | two unsupervised strategies | 0.7850
±
0.0045 | —
| — | Accuracy
0.7850
±
0.0045 NMI
— |
| 4 | SCGC | — | 0.7748 | 0.6767 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6767 |
| 5 | CCGC | — | 0.7725 | 0.6744 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6744 |
| 6 | DFCN | — | 0.7688 | 0.6921 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6921 |
| 7 | DyFSS | — | 0.7686 | 0.6778 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6778 |
| 8 | DGCN | — | 0.7607 | 0.6613 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6613 |
| 9 | AGE | — | 0.7598 | — | Accuracy
— NMI
— |
| 10 | CGC | — | 0.7302 | 0.6326 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6326 |
| 11 | MCGC | — | 0.7164 | 0.6154 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6154 |
| 12 | FGC | — | 0.7104 | 0.6102 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6102 |
| 13 | SSGC | — | 0.6023 | 0.6037 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.6037 |
| 14 | SDCN | — | 0.5344 | 0.4485 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.4485 |
| 15 | MVGRL | — | 0.4519 | 0.3689 | Accuracy
— NMI
0.3689 |
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.
| # | Model | F1 ↑ default | ACC ↑ | NMI ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AGCN | 0.6084 | —
| — | |
| 2 | the idea | — | 0.5840 | 0.2879 | F1
— NMI
0.2879 |
| 3 | two unsupervised strategies | 0.5681
±
0.0034 | —
| — | F1
0.5681
±
0.0034 NMI
— |
| 4 | SCGC | — | 0.5658 | 0.2807 | F1
— NMI
0.2807 |
| 5 | CCGC | — | 0.5634 | 0.2815 | F1
— NMI
0.2815 |
| 6 | FGC | — | 0.5303 | 0.2706 | F1
— NMI
0.2706 |
| 7 | AGE | — | 0.5237 | 0.2364 | F1
— NMI
0.2364 |
| 8 | DGCN | — | 0.5227 | 0.2354 | F1
— NMI
0.2354 |
| 9 | SDCN | — | 0.5225 | 0.2161 | F1
— NMI
0.2161 |
| 10 | DyFSS | — | 0.5143 | 0.2552 | F1
— NMI
0.2552 |
| 11 | CGC | — | 0.4958 | 0.1749 | F1
— NMI
0.1749 |
| 12 | MVGRL | — | 0.4416 | 0.2153 | F1
— NMI
0.2153 |
| 13 | MCGC | — | 0.4193 | 0.1664 | F1
— NMI
0.1664 |
| 14 | SSGC | — | 0.3674 | 0.0804 | F1
— NMI
0.0804 |
| 15 | DFCN | — | 0.3361 | 0.2649 | F1
— NMI
0.2649 |
