Graph Learning via Logic-Based Weisfeiler-Leman Variants and Tabularization
Abstract
We present a novel approach for graph classification based on tabularizing graph data via new variants of the Weisfeiler–Leman algorithm and then applying methods for tabular data. The variants are obtained by modifying the underlying logical framework, and we establish a precise theoretical characterization of their expressive power using a novel generalization of the bisimulation game for generalized quantifiers. We then test our method on 14 datasets that span a range of application domains. The experiments demonstrate that on datasets with up to 40 000 samples, our approach generally matches the predictive performance of graph neural networks and graph transformers, without requiring a GPU or extensive hyperparameter tuning. Even when our method's tuning time is included and the baselines' is not, our method is 5--20 times faster. When tuning time is included for all methods, the gap is significantly greater in favour of our method.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9910
±0.0030 | |
| 2 | ID-GNN+BEC | 0.9830
±0.0360 | |
| 3 | SupCosine | 0.9830
±0.0250 | |
| 39 | GIN | 0.9330
±0.0290 best reported | best at pub: ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 63 | GCN | 0.9220
±0.0440 best reported | best at pub: Depth-Adaptive Graph Neural Networks via Learnable Bakry-Émery Curvature (KDD 2025) |
| 159 | WL | 0.9040
±0.0570 best reported | best at pub: How Powerful are $K$-hop Message Passing Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 158 | GraphSAGE | 0.9040
±0.0780 | |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 448 | GraphGPS | 0.8500
±0.0316 best reported | best at pub: Dual-perspective Cross Contrastive Learning in Graph Transformers (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 488 | Q-WL-RF | 0.8400
±0.0200 | This paper |
| 533 | Exphormer | 0.8280
±0.0140 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WL-MLP | 0.9954 | |
| 2 | GIN | 0.9934 best reported | best at pub: 1-WL Expressiveness Is (Almost) All You Need (2022) |
| 3 | GCN | 0.9727 best reported | best at pub: 1-WL Expressiveness Is (Almost) All You Need (2022) |
| 12 | WL | 0.8590
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 16 | Q-WL-RF | 0.8570
±0.0150 | This paper |
| 35 | GraphGPS | 0.8421
±0.0225 best reported | best at pub: Dual-perspective Cross Contrastive Learning in Graph Transformers (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 96 | Exphormer | 0.8270
±0.0140 | This paper |
| 131 | GraphSAGE | 0.8200
±0.0100 |
