GraIP: A Benchmarking Framework For Neural Graph Inverse Problems

Semih Cantürk, Andrei Manolache, Arman Mielke, Chendi Qian, Antoine Siraudin, Christopher Morris, Mathias Niepert, Guy Wolf

Main figure for GraIP: A Benchmarking Framework For Neural Graph Inverse Problems

Abstract

A wide range of graph learning tasks, such as structure discovery, temporal graph analysis, and combinatorial optimization, focus on inferring graph structures from data, rather than making predictions on given graphs. However, the respective methods to solve such problems are often developed in an isolated, task-specific manner and thus lack a unifying theoretical foundation. Here, we provide a stepping stone towards the formation of such a foundation and further development by introducing the Neural Graph Inverse Problem (GraIP) conceptual framework, which formalizes and reframes a broad class of graph learning tasks as inverse problems. Unlike discriminative approaches that directly predict target variables from given graph inputs, the GraIP paradigm addresses inverse problems, i.e., it relies on observational data and aims to recover the underlying graph structure by reversing the forward process, such as message passing or network dynamics, that produced the observed outputs. We demonstrate the versatility of GraIP across various graph learning tasks, including rewiring, causal discovery, and neural relational inference. We also propose benchmark datasets and metrics for each GraIP domain considered, and characterize and empirically evaluate existing baseline methods used to solve them. Overall, our unifying perspective bridges seemingly disparate applications and provides a principled approach to structural learning in constrained and combinatorial settings while encouraging cross-pollination of existing methods across graph inverse problems.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets

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
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
188
SIMPLE
0.8270 ±0.0320
This paper
264
Gumbel
0.7890 ±0.0670
This paper
269
I-MLE
0.7840 ±0.0330
This paper
344
Random rewire
0.7380 ±0.0120
This paper
419
Baseline (GINE)
0.6740 ±0.0100
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
138
SAGE
0.8269
322
SIMPLE
0.6590 ±0.0400
This paper
380
I-MLE
0.5950 ±0.0510
This paper
412
Baseline (GINE)
0.5740 ±0.0060
This paper
438
Gumbel
0.5410 ±0.0380
This paper
478
Random rewire
0.5100 ±0.0570
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
0.9010 ±0.0350
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
63
GCN
0.8310 ±0.0320
100
SIMPLE
0.7500 ±0.0150
This paper
116
Random rewire
0.7310 ±0.0050
This paper
123
Gumbel
0.7060 ±0.0370
This paper
129
Baseline (GINE)
0.6970 ±0.0130
This paper
133
I-MLE
0.6940 ±0.0220
This paper

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
0.2421 ±0.0016
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
65
SIMPLE
0.2480 ±0.0010
This paper
99
Random rewire
0.2510 ±0.0010
This paper
100
Gumbel
0.2510 ±0.0030
This paper
108
I-MLE
0.2520 ±0.0030
This paper
185
Baseline (GINE)
0.3550 ±0.0050
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
0.7261 ±0.0011
53
SIMPLE
0.6830 ±0.0090
This paper
82
I-MLE
0.6590 ±0.0120
This paper
103
Random rewire
0.6510 ±0.0030
This paper
157
Gumbel
0.5730 ±0.0120
This paper
162
Baseline (GINE)
0.5500 ±0.0080
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)