ATLAS: Adaptive Topology-based Learning at Scale for Homophilic and Heterophilic Graphs

Turja Kundu, Sanjukta Bhowmick

Main figure for ATLAS: Adaptive Topology-based Learning at Scale for Homophilic and Heterophilic Graphs

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) excel on homophilic graphs where connected nodes share labels, but struggle with heterophilic graphs where edges do not imply similarity. Moreover, iterative message passing limits scalability due to neighborhood expansion overhead. We introduce ATLAS (Adaptive Topology-based Learning at Scale), a propagation-free framework that encodes graph structure through multi-resolution community features rather than message passing. We first prove that community refinement involves a fundamental trade-off: finer partitions increase label-community mutual information but also increase entropy. We formalize when refinement improves normalized mutual information, explaining why intermediate granularities are often most predictive. ATLAS employs modularity-guided adaptive search to automatically identify informative community scales, which are then one-hot encoded, projected into learnable embeddings, and concatenated with node attributes for MLP classification. This enables standard mini-batch training and adjacency-free inference after one-time preprocessing. Across 13 benchmarks including million-node graphs, ATLAS achieves competitive or superior accuracy—up to 20-point gains over GCN on heterophilic datasets and 12-point gains over MLPs on homophilic graphs. By treating topology as explicit features, ATLAS adapts intelligently: leveraging structure when informative, remaining robust when weakly aligned, and avoiding propagation when structure misleads, providing both scalable performance and interpretable structural insights.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 20 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
paper 0.7564 ±0.0021
paper 0.7564 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.1304
14
SAGN
actual #14 vs paper #117 103 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #117 103 places worse
paper 0.8121 ±0.0007
paper 0.8121 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0615
64
GraphSAINT
actual #64 vs paper #259 195 places worse
0.8383 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #259 195 places worse
paper 0.7536 ±0.0034
paper 0.7536 ±0.0034 Δ at pub 0.0847
65
GAMLP
0.8376 ±0.0019
This paper
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
paper 0.8052 ±0.0016
paper 0.8052 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0258
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #134 51 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #134 51 places worse
paper 0.8061 ±0.0016
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #346 252 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #346 252 places worse
paper 0.6748 ±0.0011
paper 0.6748 ±0.0011 Δ at pub 0.1472
111
ATLAS-FR
0.8144 ±0.0020
This paper
139
ATLAS-LPF
0.8034 ±0.0033
This paper
147
ATLAS
0.7998 ±0.0014
This paper
190
ClusterGCN
actual #190 vs paper #206 16 places worse
0.7897 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #206 16 places worse
paper 0.7862 ±0.0061

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7862 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0035 Δ today 0.0035
207
LABOR
0.7859 ±0.0034
This paper
266
ATLAS-LPF-NF
0.7514 ±0.0030
This paper
268
ATLAS-NF
0.7507 ±0.0030
This paper
327
GRAPES
0.7145 ±0.0020
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
paper 0.6106 ±0.0008
paper 0.6106 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.2312 Δ today 0.0499

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
64
SAGE
actual #64 vs paper #106 42 places worse
0.8574 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #106 42 places worse
paper 0.7621 ±0.0065
paper 0.7621 ±0.0065 Δ at pub 0.0953 Δ today 0.0953
70
CMGNN
0.8442 ±0.0166
This paper
72
M2M-GNN
0.8417 ±0.0049
This paper
76
OrderedGNN
actual #76 vs paper #76
0.8288 ±0.0071
actual #76 vs paper #76
paper 0.8288 ±0.0071
paper 0.8288 ±0.0071 Δ at pub 0.0520
77
GCN
actual #77 vs paper #194 117 places worse
0.8272 ±0.0082
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #194 117 places worse
paper 0.4568 ±0.0038
paper 0.4568 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.3704
83
GAT
actual #83 vs paper #193 110 places worse
0.8145 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #193 110 places worse
paper 0.4716 ±0.0066
paper 0.4716 ±0.0066 Δ at pub 0.3429
89
ATLAS-FR
0.8007 ±0.0051
This paper
92
FSGNN
0.7992 ±0.0056
This paper
96
ATLAS-LPF-NF
0.7904 ±0.0072
This paper
102
ATLAS-NF
0.7810 ±0.0059
This paper
107
GBK-GNN
actual #107 vs paper #109 2 places worse
0.7587 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #109 2 places worse
paper 0.7457 ±0.0047
paper 0.7457 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0130 Δ today 0.0130
108
FAGCN
actual #108 vs paper #142 34 places worse
0.7571 ±0.0139
best reported
actual #108 vs paper #142 34 places worse
paper 0.6522 ±0.0056
paper 0.6522 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.1049
114
GPR-GNN
actual #114 vs paper #144 30 places worse
0.7337 ±0.0068
best reported
actual #114 vs paper #144 30 places worse
paper 0.6485 ±0.0027
paper 0.6485 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0852 Δ today 0.0852
115
ACM-GCN
actual #115 vs paper #115
0.7189 ±0.0061
actual #115 vs paper #115
paper 0.7189 ±0.0061

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7189 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0047
122
JacobiConv
0.7114 ±0.0042
This paper
123
ATLAS-LPF
0.7022 ±0.0037
This paper
129
H2GCN
actual #129 vs paper #164 35 places worse
0.6809 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #129 vs paper #164 35 places worse
paper 0.6011 ±0.0052
paper 0.6011 ±0.0052 Δ at pub 0.0798 Δ today 0.0798
135
MLP
actual #135 vs paper #136 1 place worse
0.6665 ±0.0047
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #136 1 place worse
paper 0.6622 ±0.0053

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6622 ±0.0053 Δ at pub 0.0043
137
ATLAS
0.6622 ±0.0053
This paper
154
GloGNN
actual #154 vs paper #167 13 places worse
0.6385 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #154 vs paper #167 13 places worse
paper 0.5963 ±0.0069
paper 0.5963 ±0.0069 Δ at pub 0.0422 Δ today 0.0422
168
LINKX
actual #168 vs paper #179 11 places worse
0.5914 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #168 vs paper #179 11 places worse
paper 0.5615 ±0.0093
paper 0.5615 ±0.0093 Δ at pub 0.0299
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Polynormer-r
0.8591 ±0.0074
2
DC-GNN
0.8588 ±0.0081
3
TANGO-GPS
0.8566 ±0.0101
28
GAT
actual #28 vs paper #135 107 places worse
0.8443 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #135 107 places worse
paper 0.7531 ±0.0135
paper 0.7531 ±0.0135 Δ at pub 0.0912
50
GCN
actual #50 vs paper #136 86 places worse
0.8364 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #136 86 places worse
paper 0.7493 ±0.0132
paper 0.7493 ±0.0132 Δ at pub 0.0871 Δ today 0.0871
64
ATLAS-NF
0.8288 ±0.0078
This paper
66
FSGNN
0.8276 ±0.0061
This paper
67
ATLAS-LPF-NF
0.8265 ±0.0092
This paper
76
SAGE
actual #76 vs paper #85 9 places worse
0.8243 ±0.0044
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #85 9 places worse
paper 0.8095 ±0.0092
paper 0.8095 ±0.0092 Δ at pub 0.0148 Δ today 0.0148
77
GraphSAGE
0.8243 ±0.0044
79
ATLAS-LPF
0.8230 ±0.0076
This paper
80
ATLAS
0.8219 ±0.0073
This paper
84
LINKX
actual #84 vs paper #84
0.8115 ±0.0123
actual #84 vs paper #84
paper 0.8115 ±0.0123

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8115 ±0.0123 Δ at pub 0.0108
85
GBK-GNN
0.8101 ±0.0067
This paper
88
M2M-GNN
0.8085 ±0.0008
This paper
92
ACM-GCN
actual #92 vs paper #136 44 places worse
0.8045 ±0.0054
best reported
actual #92 vs paper #136 44 places worse
paper 0.7495 ±0.0116
paper 0.7495 ±0.0116 Δ at pub 0.0550
113
H2GCN
actual #113 vs paper #141 28 places worse
0.7815
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #141 28 places worse
paper 0.7335 ±0.0101
paper 0.7335 ±0.0101 Δ at pub 0.0480
116
FAGCN
actual #116 vs paper #122 6 places worse
0.7812
best reported
actual #116 vs paper #122 6 places worse
paper 0.7775 ±0.0105

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7775 ±0.0105 Δ at pub 0.0037
131
CMGNN
0.7638 ±0.0242
This paper
135
OrderedGNN
0.7560 ±0.0136
This paper
139
MLP
actual #139 vs paper #141 2 places worse
0.7362 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #141 2 places worse
paper 0.7297 ±0.0090

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7297 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0065
140
GloGNN
0.7339 ±0.0117
This paper
143
GPR-GNN
0.7294 ±0.0097
This paper
154
JacobiConv
0.6866 ±0.0065
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