Adaptive Graph Mixture of Residual Experts: Unsupervised Learning on Diverse Graphs with Heterogeneous Specialization

Yunlong Chu, Minglai Shao, Zengyi Wo, Bing Hao, Yuhang Liu, Ruijie Wang, Jianxin Li

Main figure for Adaptive Graph Mixture of Residual Experts: Unsupervised Learning on Diverse Graphs with Heterogeneous Specialization

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) face a fundamental adaptability challenge: their fixed message-passing architectures struggle with the immense diversity of real-world graphs, where optimal computational strategies vary by local structure and task. While Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) offers a promising pathway to adaptability, existing graph MoE methods remain constrained by their reliance on supervised signals and instability when training heterogeneous experts. We introduce ADaMoRE (Adaptive Mixture of Residual Experts), a principled framework that enables robust, fully unsupervised training of heterogeneous MoE on graphs. ADaMoRE employs a backbone-residual expert architecture where foundational encoders provide stability while specialized residual experts capture diverse computational patterns. A structurally-aware gating network performs fine-grained node routing. The entire architecture is trained end-to-end using a unified unsupervised objective, which integrates a primary reconstruction task with an information-theoretic diversity regularizer to explicitly enforce functional specialization among the experts. Theoretical analysis confirms our design improves data efficiency and training stability. Extensive evaluation across 16 benchmarks validates ADaMoRE's state-of-the-art performance in unsupervised node classification and few-shot learning, alongside superior generalization, training efficiency, and faster convergence on diverse graphs and tasks.

Proposed method: ADaMoRE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #294 274 places worse
0.6850 ±0.0524
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #294 274 places worse
paper 0.2024 ±0.0639
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.2024 ±0.0639 Δ at pub 0.4826
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #298 262 places worse
0.6650 ±0.0691
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #298 262 places worse
paper 0.1930 ±0.0636
best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)
paper 0.1930 ±0.0636 Δ at pub 0.4720
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
131
GraphCL
actual #131 vs paper #295 164 places worse
0.5510 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #131 vs paper #295 164 places worse
paper 0.1993 ±0.0565
paper 0.1993 ±0.0565 Δ at pub 0.3517
252
GraphPrompt
actual #252 vs paper #281 29 places worse
0.2567 ±0.0349
best reported
actual #252 vs paper #281 29 places worse
paper 0.2185 ±0.0617

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2185 ±0.0617 Δ at pub 0.0382
255
ADaMoRE
0.2523 ±0.0470
This paper
264
GMoE-GIN
0.2315 ±0.0363
This paper
265
DSSL
0.2314 ±0.0671
This paper
272
ProNoG
0.2255 ±0.0670
This paper
275
GMoE-GCN
0.2233 ±0.0356
This paper
283
DGI
0.2157 ±0.0537
This paper
287
GMOE-SAGE
0.2130 ±0.0329
This paper
294
GraphACL
0.2028 ±0.0560
This paper
295
FAGCN
0.1995 ±0.0594
This paper
297
H2GCN
0.1940 ±0.0557
This paper

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
101
GREET
actual #101 vs paper #233 132 places worse
0.8703 ±0.0236
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #233 132 places worse
paper 0.8079 ±0.0441

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8079 ±0.0441 Δ at pub 0.0624 Δ today 0.0624
120
ADaMoRE
0.8605 ±0.0576
This paper
192
S3GCL
0.8250 ±0.0586
This paper
238
SP-GCL
actual #238 vs paper #293 55 places worse
0.8036 ±0.0564
best reported
actual #238 vs paper #293 55 places worse
paper 0.7683 ±0.0582

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7683 ±0.0582 Δ at pub 0.0353
293
GDAE
0.7684 ±0.0668
This paper
302
MaskGAE
actual #302 vs paper #302
0.7604 ±0.0642
actual #302 vs paper #302
paper 0.7604 ±0.0642
paper 0.7604 ±0.0642 Δ at pub 0.1118
304
DGI
actual #304 vs paper #304
0.7581 ±0.0503
actual #304 vs paper #304
paper 0.7581 ±0.0503
351
MVGRL
actual #351 vs paper #351
0.7301 ±0.0552
actual #351 vs paper #351
paper 0.7301 ±0.0552
359
DSSL
actual #359 vs paper #359
0.7273 ±0.0402
actual #359 vs paper #359
paper 0.7273 ±0.0402
paper 0.7273 ±0.0402 Δ at pub 0.1062
369
GRACE
actual #369 vs paper #369
0.7215 ±0.0453
actual #369 vs paper #369
paper 0.7215 ±0.0453
paper 0.7215 ±0.0453 Δ at pub 0.0861
400
GBT
0.6925 ±0.0481
This paper
409
BGRL
actual #409 vs paper #409
0.6841 ±0.0501
actual #409 vs paper #409
paper 0.6841 ±0.0501

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6841 ±0.0501 Δ at pub 0.0261
#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
88
GREET
actual #88 vs paper #285 197 places worse
0.8514 ±0.0487
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #285 197 places worse
paper 0.7000 ±0.0534
138
SAGE
0.8269
194
SP-GCL
actual #194 vs paper #278 84 places worse
0.7833 ±0.0426
best reported
actual #194 vs paper #278 84 places worse
paper 0.7069 ±0.0651

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7069 ±0.0651 Δ at pub 0.0764
212
ADaMoRE
0.7737 ±0.0421
This paper
253
S3GCL
0.7333 ±0.0734
This paper
289
DSSL
actual #289 vs paper #289
0.6928 ±0.0601
actual #289 vs paper #289
paper 0.6928 ±0.0601
paper 0.6928 ±0.0601 Δ at pub 0.1565
318
GDAE
0.6632 ±0.0817
This paper
325
MaskGAE
actual #325 vs paper #325
0.6550 ±0.0744
actual #325 vs paper #325
paper 0.6550 ±0.0744
paper 0.6550 ±0.0744 Δ at pub 0.2226
340
MVGRL
actual #340 vs paper #365 25 places worse
0.6430
best reported
actual #340 vs paper #365 25 places worse
paper 0.6126 ±0.0401

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6126 ±0.0401 Δ at pub 0.0304
350
DGI
actual #350 vs paper #392 42 places worse
0.6335
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #392 42 places worse
paper 0.5868 ±0.0504

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5868 ±0.0504 Δ at pub 0.0467
415
BGRL
actual #415 vs paper #428 13 places worse
0.5730
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #428 13 places worse
paper 0.5498 ±0.0602

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5498 ±0.0602 Δ at pub 0.0232
423
GRACE
actual #423 vs paper #524 101 places worse
0.5640 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #423 vs paper #524 101 places worse
paper 0.4585 ±0.0551
paper 0.4585 ±0.0551 Δ at pub 0.1055
495
GBT
0.4932 ±0.0452
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
158
GREET
actual #158 vs paper #366 208 places worse
0.3655 ±0.0101
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #366 208 places worse
paper 0.2928 ±0.0080
paper 0.2928 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0727 Δ today 0.0727
218
HGRL
actual #218 vs paper #357 139 places worse
0.3540 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #218 vs paper #357 139 places worse
paper 0.2979 ±0.0110
paper 0.2979 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0561
321
ADaMoRE
0.3121 ±0.0030
This paper
415
S3GCL
0.2653 ±0.0050
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
104
ADaMoRE
0.7786 ±0.0089
This paper
135
MLP
0.6665 ±0.0047
147
S3GCL
0.6455 ±0.0075
This paper
153
GREET
0.6389 ±0.0134
This paper
157
GDAE
0.6290 ±0.0067
This paper
160
MaskGAE
0.6221 ±0.0084
This paper
167
DSSL
0.5969 ±0.0075
This paper
190
BGRL
0.5079 ±0.0113
This paper
191
SP-GCL
0.5079 ±0.0095
This paper
192
GRACE
0.5024 ±0.0102
This paper
194
MVGRL
0.4668 ±0.0073
This paper
196
DGI
actual #196 vs paper #196
0.4204 ±0.0094
actual #196 vs paper #196
paper 0.4204 ±0.0094
202
GBT
0.3776 ±0.0085
This paper

Minesweeper

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
GraphTARIF
0.9903 ±0.0019
2
BuNN
0.9899 ±0.0016
3
M3Dphormer
0.9827 ±0.0020
9
GCN
0.9744 ±0.0017
32
ADaMoRE
0.8502 ±0.0068
This paper
36
GREET
0.8176 ±0.0088
This paper
38
MVGRL
0.8083 ±0.0085
This paper
41
S3GCL
0.8037 ±0.0081
This paper
42
BGRL
0.8007 ±0.0065
This paper
43
MLP
0.8000
44
GRACE
0.7999 ±0.0081
This paper
45
DGI
0.7995 ±0.0075
This paper
46
DSSL
0.7979 ±0.0073
This paper
47
SP-GCL
0.7975 ±0.0064
This paper
48
MaskGAE
0.7971 ±0.0072
This paper
49
GDAE
0.7966 ±0.0068
This paper
50
GBT
0.7834 ±0.0071
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