FloydNet: A Learning Paradigm for Global Relational Reasoning

Jingcheng Yu, Mingliang Zeng, Qiwei Ye

Main figure for FloydNet: A Learning Paradigm for Global Relational Reasoning

Abstract

Developing models capable of complex, multi-step reasoning is a central goal in artificial intelligence. While representing problems as graphs is a powerful approach, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are fundamentally constrained by their message-passing mechanism, which imposes a local bottleneck that limits global, holistic reasoning. We argue that dynamic programming (DP), which solves problems by iteratively refining a global state, offers a more powerful and suitable learning paradigm. We introduce FloydNet, a new architecture that embodies this principle. In contrast to local message passing, FloydNet maintains a global, all-pairs relationship tensor and learns a generalized DP operator to progressively refine it. This enables the model to develop a task-specific relational calculus, providing a principled framework for capturing long-range dependencies. Theoretically, we prove that FloydNet achieves 3-WL expressive power (equivalently, 2-FWL), and that its higher-order generalization aligns with the k-FWL hierarchy. FloydNet demonstrates state-of-the-art performance across challenging domains: it achieves near-perfect scores (often >99\

Proposed method: FloydNet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 13 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
TIGT
0.0140 ±0.0010
2
FloydNet
0.0160
This paper
3
GSSC
0.0190 ±0.0010
17
Local 2-GNN
0.0240
This paper
18
ET+RRWP
actual #18 vs paper #18
0.0240
actual #18 vs paper #18
paper 0.0240
prev best: Towards Principled Graph Transformers (NeurIPS 2024)
paper 0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0350
22
Graphormer
0.0250
This paper
28
Subgraph GNN
0.0280
This paper
36
MPNN
actual #36 vs paper #36
0.0300
actual #36 vs paper #36
paper 0.0300
prev best: Hyperbolic Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2019)
paper 0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0110
69
GIN
0.0880 ±0.0020

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #183 182 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #183 182 places worse
paper 0.3496
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
62
Graph-Mamba
0.2478
This paper
66
Exphormer
actual #66 vs paper #100 34 places worse
0.2481 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #100 34 places worse
paper 0.2512
paper 0.2512 Δ at pub 0.0031 Δ today 0.0031
85
GPS
0.2500
This paper
148
FloydNet
0.2612
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
actual #4 vs paper #142 138 places worse
0.7261 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #142 138 places worse
paper 0.5930
paper 0.5930 Δ at pub 0.0930 Δ today 0.1331
26
GIN
0.7059 ±0.0089
62
Graph-Mamba
0.6739
This paper
87
GPS
actual #87 vs paper #91 4 places worse
0.6562 ±0.0115
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #91 4 places worse
paper 0.6535

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6535 Δ at pub 0.0027
95
Exphormer
actual #95 vs paper #125 30 places worse
0.6527 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #125 30 places worse
paper 0.6258
paper 0.6258 Δ at pub 0.0269 Δ today 0.0269
127
FloydNet
0.6224
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
NeuralWalker
0.4912 ±0.0042
2
PPGT
0.4641 ±0.0033
3
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
14
GPS
actual #14 vs paper #45 31 places worse
0.4440 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #45 31 places worse
paper 0.3724
paper 0.3724 Δ at pub 0.0716 Δ today 0.0716
19
Exphormer
actual #19 vs paper #60 41 places worse
0.4242 ±0.0044
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #60 41 places worse
paper 0.3446
paper 0.3446 Δ at pub 0.0796
26
Graph-Mamba
0.4191
This paper
32
FloydNet
0.4046
This paper
41
GatedGCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
81
GCN
actual #81 vs paper #92 11 places worse
0.2380 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #92 11 places worse
paper 0.1268
paper 0.1268 Δ at pub 0.1112
93
MLP
0.1140 ±0.0230
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.6143
This paper
2
Exphormer
actual #2 vs paper #36 34 places worse
0.4737 ±0.0024
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #36 34 places worse
paper 0.3587
paper 0.3587 Δ at pub 0.1150
3
Exphormer + LapPE
0.4737 ±0.0024
5
GPS
actual #5 vs paper #50 45 places worse
0.4703 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #50 45 places worse
paper 0.3437
paper 0.3437 Δ at pub 0.1266
8
GatedGCN
0.4670 ±0.0004
16
GIN
0.4617 ±0.0005
28
GCN
actual #28 vs paper #76 48 places worse
0.4526 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #76 48 places worse
paper 0.3234
paper 0.3234 Δ at pub 0.1292 Δ today 0.1292
55
Graph-Mamba
0.3395
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.4901
This paper
2
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
3
GPS
actual #3 vs paper #22 19 places worse
0.4440 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #22 19 places worse
paper 0.3774
10
Exphormer
actual #10 vs paper #27 17 places worse
0.3960 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #27 17 places worse
paper 0.3430
11
Graph-Mamba
0.3960
This paper
16
GatedGCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
45
GCN
actual #45 vs paper #61 16 places worse
0.2078 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #61 16 places worse
paper 0.0841
74
MLP
0.0310 ±0.0160
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