LoG 2025

Complex-Weighted Convolutional Networks: Provable Expressiveness via Complex Diffusion

Cristina Amado, Tassilo Schwarz, Yu Tian, R. Lambiotte

Main figure for Complex-Weighted Convolutional Networks: Provable Expressiveness via Complex Diffusion

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse applications, yet they remain limited by oversmoothing and poor performance on heterophilic graphs. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel framework that equips graphs with a complex-weighted structure, assigning each edge a complex number to drive a diffusion process that extends random walks into the complex domain. We prove that this diffusion is highly expressive: with appropriately chosen complex weights, any node-classification task can be solved in the steady state of a complex random walk. Building on this insight, we propose the Complex-Weighted Convolutional Network (CWCN), which learns suitable complex-weighted structures directly from data while enriching diffusion with learnable matrices and nonlinear activations. CWCN is simple to implement, requires no additional hyperparameters beyond those of standard GNNs, and achieves competitive performance on benchmark datasets. Our results demonstrate that complex-weighted diffusion provides a principled and general mechanism for enhancing GNN expressiveness, opening new avenues for models that are both theoretically grounded and practically effective.https://github.com/clopezamado/complex-weighted-convolutional-networks.git

Proposed method: CWCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 9 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
28
GPRGNN
actual #28 vs paper #272 244 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #272 244 places worse
paper 0.7836 ±0.0431
paper 0.7836 ±0.0431 Δ at pub 0.1459
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
126
SCN
0.8595 ±0.0695
This paper
168
CWCN
0.8405 ±0.0645
This paper
182
BLEND
0.8324 ±0.0464
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
96
SCN
0.8486 ±0.0471
This paper
121
CWCN
0.8351 ±0.0815
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
38
GCNII
actual #38 vs paper #114 76 places worse
0.4082 ±0.0179
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #114 76 places worse
paper 0.3744 ±0.0130
paper 0.3744 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0117 Δ today 0.0338
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #247 195 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #247 195 places worse
paper 0.3463 ±0.0122
paper 0.3463 ±0.0122 Δ at pub 0.0529 Δ today 0.0529
56
FAGCN
actual #56 vs paper #240 184 places worse
0.3970
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #240 184 places worse
paper 0.3487 ±0.0125
paper 0.3487 ±0.0125 Δ at pub 0.0483
62
GGCN
actual #62 vs paper #113 51 places worse
0.3929 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #113 51 places worse
paper 0.3754 ±0.0156

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3754 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.0027 Δ today 0.0175
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
paper 0.3423 ±0.0099
paper 0.3423 ±0.0099 Δ at pub 0.0476
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #198 127 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #198 127 places worse
paper 0.3570 ±0.0100
paper 0.3570 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0270 Δ today 0.0315
87
Geom-GCN
actual #87 vs paper #308 221 places worse
0.3810
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #308 221 places worse
paper 0.3159 ±0.0115
paper 0.3159 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0651
96
GREAD
0.3790 ±0.0117
This paper
103
SCN
0.3781 ±0.0115
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #408 273 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #408 273 places worse
paper 0.2732 ±0.0110
paper 0.2732 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0958
161
CWCN
0.3651 ±0.0126
This paper
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234 Δ at pub 0.0426
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #406 224 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #406 224 places worse
paper 0.2744 ±0.0089
paper 0.2744 ±0.0089 Δ at pub 0.0861
201
BLEND
0.3563 ±0.0101
This paper
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
408
PairNorm
0.2740 ±0.0124
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere