Dynamic Triangulation-Based Graph Rewiring for Graph Neural Networks

Hugo Attali, Thomas Papastergiou, Nathalie Pernelle, Fragkiskos D. Malliaros

Main figure for Dynamic Triangulation-Based Graph Rewiring for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as the leading paradigm for learning over graph-structured data. However, their performance is limited by issues inherent to graph topology, most notably oversquashing and oversmoothing. Recent advances in graph rewiring aim to mitigate these limitations by modifying the graph topology to promote more effective information propagation. In this work, we introduce TRIGON, a novel framework that constructs enriched, non-planar triangulations by learning to select relevant triangles from multiple graph views. By jointly optimizing triangle selection and downstream classification performance, our method produces a rewired graph with markedly improved structural properties such as reduced diameter, increased spectral gap, and lower effective resistance compared to existing rewiring methods. Empirical results demonstrate that TRIGON outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on node classification tasks across a range of homophilic and heterophilic benchmarks.

Proposed method: TRIGON

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
286
TRIGON
0.7729 ±0.0155
This paper
322
BORF
actual #322 vs paper #555 233 places worse
0.7488 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #322 vs paper #555 233 places worse
paper 0.5668 ±0.0149
333
DR
actual #333 vs paper #333
0.7430 ±0.0138
actual #333 vs paper #333
paper 0.7430 ±0.0138
paper 0.7430 ±0.0138 Δ at pub 0.0650
397
JDR
0.6956 ±0.0171
This paper
478
DIGL
actual #478 vs paper #597 119 places worse
0.6203 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #478 vs paper #597 119 places worse
paper 0.4649 ±0.0163
480
FoSR
actual #480 vs paper #480
0.6185 ±0.0141
actual #480 vs paper #480
paper 0.6185 ±0.0141
paper 0.6185 ±0.0141 Δ at pub 0.1585
506
SRDF
0.5979 ±0.0171
This paper
544
GTR
actual #544 vs paper #544
0.5788 ±0.0165
actual #544 vs paper #544
paper 0.5788 ±0.0165
paper 0.5788 ±0.0165 Δ at pub 0.0838
553
Base (GAT)
0.5684 ±0.0161
This paper
560
FA
0.5617 ±0.0171
This paper
#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
280
TRIGON
0.7063 ±0.0166
This paper
301
DR
actual #301 vs paper #301
0.6803 ±0.0162
actual #301 vs paper #301
paper 0.6803 ±0.0162

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6803 ±0.0162 Δ at pub 0.0013
385
GTR
actual #385 vs paper #499 114 places worse
0.5920 ±0.0480
best reported
actual #385 vs paper #499 114 places worse
paper 0.4870 ±0.0163
paper 0.4870 ±0.0163 Δ at pub 0.1050
401
DIGL
actual #401 vs paper #531 130 places worse
0.5826 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #401 vs paper #531 130 places worse
paper 0.4446 ±0.0137
402
JDR
0.5819 ±0.0158
This paper
480
BORF
actual #480 vs paper #501 21 places worse
0.5080 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #480 vs paper #501 21 places worse
paper 0.4857 ±0.0156

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4857 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.0223
505
FoSR
actual #505 vs paper #505
0.4830 ±0.0161
actual #505 vs paper #505
paper 0.4830 ±0.0161
paper 0.4830 ±0.0161 Δ at pub 0.0810
508
SRDF
0.4803 ±0.0166
This paper
523
Base (GAT)
0.4605 ±0.0149
This paper
525
FA
0.4533 ±0.0155
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
This paper
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
30
DR
0.4136 ±0.0020
This paper
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
264
JDR
0.3412 ±0.0033
This paper
304
SRDF
0.3185 ±0.0022
This paper
316
BORF
0.3136 ±0.0027
This paper
320
DIGL
0.3122 ±0.0047
This paper
325
GTR
0.3108 ±0.0028
This paper
352
Base (GCN)
0.3002 ±0.0022
This paper
358
FoSR
0.2973 ±0.0024
This paper
391
FA
0.2820 ±0.0051
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
120
JDR
0.7123 ±0.0018
This paper
135
MLP
0.6665 ±0.0047
136
TRIGON
0.6652 ±0.0013
This paper
162
DR
0.6199 ±0.0014
This paper
171
BORF
0.5858 ±0.0014
This paper
181
DIGL
0.5393 ±0.0014
This paper
182
GTR
0.5331 ±0.0023
This paper
185
SRDF
0.5253 ±0.0013
This paper
186
FoSR
0.5238 ±0.0021
This paper
189
Base (GCN)
0.5166 ±0.0017
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere