Turning Tabular Foundation Models into Graph Foundation Models

Dmitry Eremeev, Gleb Bazhenov, Oleg Platonov, Artem Babenko, Liudmila Prokhorenkova

Main figure for Turning Tabular Foundation Models into Graph Foundation Models

Abstract

While foundation models have revolutionized such fields as natural language processing and computer vision, their potential in graph machine learning remains largely unexplored. One of the key challenges in designing graph foundation models (GFMs) is handling diverse node features that can vary across different graph datasets. While many works on GFMs have focused exclusively on text-attributed graphs, the problem of handling arbitrary features of other types in GFMs has not been fully addressed. However, this problem is not unique to the graph domain, as it also arises in the field of machine learning for tabular data. In this work, motivated by the recent success of tabular foundation models (TFMs) like TabPFNv2 or LimiX, we propose G2T-FM, a simple framework for turning tabular foundation models into graph foundation models. Specifically, G2T-FM augments the original node features with neighborhood feature aggregation, adds structural embeddings, and then applies a TFM to the constructed node representations. Even in a fully in-context regime, our model achieves strong results, significantly outperforming publicly available GFMs and performing competitively with, and often better than, well-tuned GNNs trained from scratch. Moreover, after finetuning, G2T-FM surpasses well-tuned GNN baselines. In particular, when combined with LimiX, G2T-FM often outperforms the best GNN by a significant margin. In summary, our paper reveals the potential of a previously overlooked direction of utilizing tabular foundation models for graph machine learning tasks..

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #242 224 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #242 224 places worse
paper 0.8546 ±0.0018
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #261 241 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #261 241 places worse
paper 0.8481 ±0.0022
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
118
GT
actual #118 vs paper #259 141 places worse
0.8875 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #118 vs paper #259 141 places worse
paper 0.8495 ±0.0018
best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023)
paper 0.8495 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0380
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #229 104 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #229 104 places worse
paper 0.8604 ±0.0026
paper 0.8604 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0260
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074

Heterophily Benchmark

Tolokers

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
NT*
0.8591 ±0.0083
2
Polynormer
0.8591 ±0.0074
3
Dir-NT
0.8502 ±0.0077
7
GCN
0.8364 ±0.0067
28
MLP
0.7816 ±0.0002
32
G2T-LimiX (ICL)
0.6148 ±0.0030
This paper
33
G2T-TabPFNv2 (ICL)
0.6042 ±0.0027
This paper
34
OpenGraph (ICL)
0.4038 ±0.0113
This paper
35
TS-GNN (ICL)
0.3854 ±0.0094
This paper
36
GCOPE (FT)
0.2881 ±0.0128
This paper
37
AnyGraph (ICL)
0.2875 ±0.0356
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
NID_GAT
0.9703 ±0.0002
2
NID_GCN
0.9685 ±0.0010
3
UniGAP
0.8421 ±0.0080
16
GCN
actual #16 vs paper #165 149 places worse
0.7902 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #165 149 places worse
paper 0.1542 ±0.0063
26
GAT
actual #26 vs paper #165 139 places worse
0.7835 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #165 139 places worse
paper 0.1675 ±0.0063
paper 0.1675 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.6160
30
GT
actual #30 vs paper #165 135 places worse
0.7795 ±0.0068
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #165 135 places worse
paper 0.1403 ±0.0086
paper 0.1403 ±0.0086 Δ at pub 0.6392 Δ today 0.6392
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #165 119 places worse
0.7721 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #165 119 places worse
paper 0.1655 ±0.0061
58
SAGE
0.7644 ±0.0062
96
MLP
0.7082 ±0.0010
164
G2T-LimiX (FT)
0.2019 ±0.0030
This paper
165
G2T-TabPFNv2 (FT)
0.1907 ±0.0053
This paper
166
GCOPE (FT)
0.0659 ±0.0043
This paper
167
TS-GNN (ICL)
0.0500 ±0.0048
This paper
168
AnyGraph (ICL)
0.0427 ±0.0066
This paper
169
OpenGraph (ICL)
0.0377 ±0.0065
This paper

Other Graph Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MA-GCL
0.8883 ±0.0030
2
CCA-SSG
0.8842 ±0.0030
3
ARIEL
0.8827 ±0.0020
9
GAT
actual #9 vs paper #61 52 places worse
0.8693 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #61 52 places worse
paper 0.4067 ±0.0053
paper 0.4067 ±0.0053 Δ at pub 0.4626
10
GCN
actual #10 vs paper #60 50 places worse
0.8651 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #60 50 places worse
paper 0.4143 ±0.0046
paper 0.4143 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.4508
33
GIN
0.4916 ±0.0102
42
G2T-LimiX (FT)
0.4567 ±0.0035
This paper
49
G2T-TabPFNv2 (FT)
0.4471 ±0.0032
This paper
54
TS-GNN (ICL)
0.4300 ±0.0013
This paper
60
GT
0.4156 ±0.0038
This paper
62
GraphSAGE
0.4007 ±0.0050
This paper
63
GCOPE (FT)
0.3990 ±0.0043
This paper
66
AnyGraph (ICL)
0.3349 ±0.0344
This paper
67
OpenGraph (ICL)
0.2936 ±0.0124
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)