ICML 2025

View Space: Learning Representation across Arbitrary Graphs

Dooho Lee, M. Kong, Minho Jeong, Jaemin Yoo

Main figure for View Space: Learning Representation across Arbitrary Graphs

Abstract

Generalizing pretrained models to unseen datasets without retraining is a central challenge toward foundation models. Achieving fully inductive inference on numerical data is particularly difficult due to large variations in feature dimensionality and semantics across datasets. We observe that, in the presence of graph structure, numerical data admits a distinct structure-induced representational axis beyond the feature space, which we formalize as the view space. This view space enables a unified representation of graphs with heterogeneous features and motivates Graph View Transformation (GVT), a class of parametric mappings that can be shared across arbitrary graphs. We instantiate this framework with Recurrent GVT, an architecture for fully inductive node representation learning in node classification. Pretrained on OGBN-Arxiv and evaluated on 27 benchmarks, Recurrent GVT outperforms GraphAny, the prior fully inductive graph model, by +8.93%, and surpasses 12 individually tuned GNNs by at least +3.30%. These results establish the view space as a principled and practical foundation for learning across graphs with heterogeneous feature spaces. Code and checkpoints are available in https://github.com/dooho00/graph-view-space.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 16 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
325
RGVT + MLP (Arxiv)
0.9215 ±0.0036
This paper
338
RGVT + Linear (Arxiv)
0.9202 ±0.0030
This paper
353
GraphAny (Arxiv)
0.9183 ±0.0005
This paper
390
MLP
actual #390 vs paper #533 143 places worse
0.9128 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #533 143 places worse
paper 0.7864 ±0.0063
paper 0.7864 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.1264
544
Linear
0.7744 ±0.0072
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #147 146 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #147 146 places worse
paper 0.7870 ±0.0091
paper 0.7870 ±0.0091 Δ at pub 0.1432
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
38
UniMP
actual #38 vs paper #158 120 places worse
0.8429 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #158 120 places worse
paper 0.7851 ±0.0066
58
GPRGNN
actual #58 vs paper #104 46 places worse
0.8258 ±0.0089
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #104 46 places worse
paper 0.7983 ±0.0100
paper 0.7983 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0275
170
RGVT + MLP
0.7821 ±0.0039
This paper
233
GraphAny
actual #233 vs paper #262 29 places worse
0.7495 ±0.0061
best reported
actual #233 vs paper #262 29 places worse
paper 0.7101 ±0.0024
paper 0.7101 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0400 Δ today 0.0394
237
MLP
actual #237 vs paper #237
0.7469 ±0.0085
actual #237 vs paper #237
paper 0.7469 ±0.0085

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7469 ±0.0085 Δ at pub 0.0129

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 #345 317 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #345 317 places worse
paper 0.7351 ±0.0616
paper 0.7351 ±0.0616 Δ at pub 0.1944
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #252 218 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #252 218 places worse
paper 0.7946 ±0.0148
46
APPNP
actual #46 vs paper #415 369 places worse
0.9131 ±0.0197
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #415 369 places worse
paper 0.6757 ±0.0191
paper 0.6757 ±0.0191 Δ at pub 0.2374
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
70
GCNII
actual #70 vs paper #472 402 places worse
0.8918 ±0.0443
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #472 402 places worse
paper 0.6216 ±0.0270
paper 0.6216 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.2702
189
SAGE
actual #189 vs paper #202 13 places worse
0.8269
best reported
actual #189 vs paper #202 13 places worse
paper 0.8216 ±0.0651

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8216 ±0.0651 Δ at pub 0.0053
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #454 243 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #454 243 places worse
paper 0.6378 ±0.0622
paper 0.6378 ±0.0622 Δ at pub 0.1784
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #438 181 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #438 181 places worse
paper 0.6541 ±0.0226
best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.6541 ±0.0226 Δ at pub 0.1392
258
GATv2
actual #258 vs paper #472 214 places worse
0.7929 ±0.0403
best reported
actual #258 vs paper #472 214 places worse
paper 0.6216 ±0.0634
paper 0.6216 ±0.0634 Δ at pub 0.1713
263
RGVT + MLP
0.7892 ±0.0121
This paper
270
Linear
0.7838
This paper
320
RGVT + Linear (Arxiv)
0.7514 ±0.0296
This paper
321
GraphAny (Wiscon)
0.7489 ±0.0263
This paper
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #411 85 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #411 85 places worse
paper 0.6811 ±0.0520

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6811 ±0.0520 Δ at pub 0.0649 Δ today 0.0649
330
SGC
actual #330 vs paper #562 232 places worse
0.7440 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #562 232 places worse
paper 0.5568 ±0.0148
paper 0.5568 ±0.0148 Δ at pub 0.1872
380
UniMP
actual #380 vs paper #472 92 places worse
0.7118 ±0.0200
best reported
actual #380 vs paper #472 92 places worse
paper 0.6216 ±0.0427
392
JKNet
actual #392 vs paper #458 66 places worse
0.7000 ±0.0549
best reported
actual #392 vs paper #458 66 places worse
paper 0.6324 ±0.0622

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6324 ±0.0622 Δ at pub 0.0676
473
S^2GC
0.6216 ±0.0331
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #222 180 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #222 180 places worse
paper 0.3532 ±0.0038
paper 0.3532 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0494
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
221
Linear
0.3538 ±0.0033
This paper
269
RGVT + MLP (Arxiv)
0.3400 ±0.0114
This paper
273
RGVT + Linear (Arxiv)
0.3387 ±0.0050
This paper
334
GraphAny (Best)
0.3068 ±0.0206
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
124
RGVT + MLP
0.7018 ±0.0028
This paper
131
RGVT + Linear
0.6771 ±0.0087
This paper
135
MLP
0.6665 ±0.0047
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
UniGAP
0.6375 ±0.0110
2
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.5961 ±0.0100
3
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.5897 ±0.0150
12
SAGE
0.5569 ±0.0023
84
MLP
actual #84 vs paper #144 60 places worse
0.5058
best reported
actual #84 vs paper #144 60 places worse
paper 0.4537 ±0.0048
paper 0.4537 ±0.0048 Δ at pub 0.0521
113
RGVT + MLP (Arxiv)
0.4861 ±0.0153
This paper
168
RGVT + Linear (Arxiv)
0.4298 ±0.0013
This paper
173
GraphAny(Cora)
0.4259 ±0.0038
This paper
193
Linear
0.3799 ±0.0010
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)