ICLR 2026

Learning Posterior Predictive Distributions for Node Classification from Synthetic Graph Priors

Jeongwhan Choi, Jongwoo Kim, Woo-Chang Kang, Noseong Park

Main figure for Learning Posterior Predictive Distributions for Node Classification from Synthetic Graph Priors

Abstract

One of the most challenging problems in graph machine learning is generalizing across graphs with diverse properties. Graph neural networks (GNNs) face a fundamental limitation: they require separate training for each new graph, preventing universal generalization across diverse graph datasets. A critical challenge facing GNNs lies in their reliance on labeled training data for each individual graph, a requirement that hinders the capacity for universal node classification due to the heterogeneity inherent in graphs --- differences in homophily levels, community structures, and feature distributions across datasets. Inspired by the success of large language models (LLMs) that achieve in-context learning through massive-scale pre-training on diverse datasets, we introduce NodePFN. This universal node classification method generalizes to arbitrary graphs without graph-specific training. NodePFN learns posterior predictive distributions (PPDs) by training only on thousands of synthetic graphs generated from carefully designed priors. Our synthetic graph generation covers real-world graphs through the use of random networks with controllable homophily levels and structural causal models for complex feature-label relationships. We develop a dual-branch architecture combining context-query attention mechanisms with local message passing to enable graph-aware in-context learning. Extensive evaluation on 23 benchmarks demonstrates that a single pre-trained NodePFN achieves 71.27\

Proposed method: NodePFN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 16 datasets 41 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 5 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #578 557 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #578 557 places worse
paper 0.8140 ±0.0070
paper 0.8140 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0864
38
TFGNN
actual #38 vs paper #876 838 places worse
0.8921 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #876 838 places worse
paper 0.6003
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #558 514 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #558 514 places worse
paper 0.8170 ±0.0143
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #710 487 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #710 487 places worse
paper 0.7820

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7820 Δ at pub 0.0689
524
NodePFN
0.8206 ±0.0029
This paper
652
GraphAny(Cora)
0.8018 ±0.0013
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #904 180 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #904 180 places worse
paper 0.4842 ±0.0063
paper 0.4842 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.2926
802
Linear
actual #802 vs paper #896 94 places worse
0.7237 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #802 vs paper #896 94 places worse
paper 0.5280
876
LabelProp
0.6030
This paper
896
TabPFN
0.5310
This paper
920
HGC
0.2250
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
712
NodePFN
0.6730
This paper
891
TabPFN
0.3294
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
72
TFGNN
actual #72 vs paper #883 811 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #883 811 places worse
paper 0.4004 ±0.0100
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #818 677 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #818 677 places worse
paper 0.7298
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
679
NodePFN
0.7800 ±0.2400
This paper
848
Linear
actual #848 vs paper #868 20 places worse
0.6866 ±0.0224
best reported
actual #848 vs paper #868 20 places worse
paper 0.5930
paper 0.5930 Δ at pub 0.0936
864
LabelProp
0.6344 ±0.0400
This paper
875
HGC
0.4632
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #351 349 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #351 349 places worse
paper 0.9186 ±0.0107
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #351 343 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #351 343 places worse
paper 0.9188 ±0.0079
390
MLP
actual #390 vs paper #560 170 places worse
0.9128 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #560 170 places worse
paper 0.6820 ±0.0088
paper 0.6820 ±0.0088 Δ at pub 0.2308
419
GraphAny(Products)
0.9064 ±0.0082
This paper
427
NodePFN
0.9053 ±0.0013
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
0.9302 ±0.0011
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
79
LLaGA
actual #79 vs paper #243 164 places worse
0.8074
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #243 164 places worse
paper 0.7388
156
OFA
actual #156 vs paper #195 39 places worse
0.7855 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #156 vs paper #195 39 places worse
paper 0.7734
216
NodePFN
0.7629
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
239
InstructGLM
actual #239 vs paper #313 74 places worse
0.7440
best reported
actual #239 vs paper #313 74 places worse
paper 0.4573
251
TabPFN
actual #251 vs paper #303 52 places worse
0.7208 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #251 vs paper #303 52 places worse
paper 0.6225
paper 0.6225 Δ at pub 0.0983
279
GraphText
0.6735
This paper

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 #435 407 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #435 407 places worse
paper 0.6577 ±0.0156
paper 0.6577 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.2718
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #295 255 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #295 255 places worse
paper 0.7658 ±0.0156
paper 0.7658 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.1531
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #408 347 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #408 347 places worse
paper 0.6844 ±0.0178
paper 0.6844 ±0.0178 Δ at pub 0.2117
270
Linear
actual #270 vs paper #616 346 places worse
0.7838
best reported
actual #270 vs paper #616 346 places worse
paper 0.3235 ±0.0530
paper 0.3235 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.4603
300
NodePFN
0.7622 ±0.0753
This paper
330
SGC
actual #330 vs paper #597 267 places worse
0.7440 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #597 267 places worse
paper 0.4603 ±0.0686
paper 0.4603 ±0.0686 Δ at pub 0.2837
549
HGC
0.5754 ±0.0630
This paper
621
LabelProp
0.2353 ±0.0551
This paper
622
TFGNN
0.1991 ±0.0610
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
22
GPRGNN
actual #22 vs paper #553 531 places worse
0.9157 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #553 531 places worse
paper 0.4054 ±0.0201
paper 0.4054 ±0.0201 Δ at pub 0.5103
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #375 337 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #375 337 places worse
paper 0.6038 ±0.0182
paper 0.6038 ±0.0182 Δ at pub 0.2814
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #322 254 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #322 254 places worse
paper 0.6577 ±0.0680
paper 0.6577 ±0.0680 Δ at pub 0.2046
138
SAGE
0.8269
269
NodePFN
0.7189 ±0.0276
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #270 218 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #270 218 places worse
paper 0.3394 ±0.0095
paper 0.3394 ±0.0095 Δ at pub 0.0598 Δ today 0.0598
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
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #192 121 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #192 121 places worse
paper 0.3586 ±0.0103
paper 0.3586 ±0.0103 Δ at pub 0.0299
289
NodePFN
0.3299 ±0.0109
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
0.7033
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #256 184 places worse
0.6748 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #256 184 places worse
paper 0.3969 ±0.0115
paper 0.3969 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.2779
107
FAGCN
actual #107 vs paper #263 156 places worse
0.6344 ±0.0205
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #263 156 places worse
paper 0.3724 ±0.0354
133
H2GCN
actual #133 vs paper #249 116 places worse
0.6030 ±0.0231
best reported
actual #133 vs paper #249 116 places worse
paper 0.4107 ±0.0265
paper 0.4107 ±0.0265 Δ at pub 0.1923
169
MLP
0.5429
197
NodePFN
0.5013 ±0.0330
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
39
H2GCN
actual #39 vs paper #217 178 places worse
0.6190 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #217 178 places worse
paper 0.3510 ±0.0115
paper 0.3510 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.2680
46
GCN
0.6067
76
GPRGNN
actual #76 vs paper #173 97 places worse
0.5435 ±0.0087
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #173 97 places worse
paper 0.3895 ±0.0199
paper 0.3895 ±0.0199 Δ at pub 0.1540
129
NodePFN
0.4340 ±0.0103
This paper
139
FAGCN
actual #139 vs paper #199 60 places worse
0.4259 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #199 60 places worse
paper 0.3678 ±0.0311
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079
#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
70
NodePFN
0.8118 ±0.0570
This paper
79
Linear
0.8000 ±0.0215
This paper
91
SGC
actual #91 vs paper #175 84 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0470
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #175 84 places worse
paper 0.5764 ±0.0107
paper 0.5764 ±0.0107 Δ at pub 0.2016
150
HGC
0.6432 ±0.0251
This paper
226
LabelProp
0.1608 ±0.0215
This paper
227
TFGNN
0.1451 ±0.0301
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is Micro-F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HG-SCM
0.9490 ±0.0015
2
SeHGNN
0.9489 ±0.0018
3
AdvSynGNN
0.9486 ±0.0012
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #106 75 places worse
0.8859 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #106 75 places worse
paper 0.7387 ±0.0135
paper 0.7387 ±0.0135 Δ at pub 0.1472
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #108 72 places worse
0.8758 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #108 72 places worse
paper 0.7302 ±0.0222
paper 0.7302 ±0.0222 Δ at pub 0.1456
65
MLP
actual #65 vs paper #126 61 places worse
0.8118 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #126 61 places worse
paper 0.5627 ±0.0062
paper 0.5627 ±0.0062 Δ at pub 0.2491
104
NodePFN
0.7471 ±0.0039
This paper
105
GraphSAGE
0.7455 ±0.0061
112
GraphAny(Cora)
0.7173 ±0.0094
This paper

Heterophily Benchmark

Minesweeper

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9903 ±0.0019
2
BuNN
0.9899 ±0.0016
3
M3Dphormer
0.9827 ±0.0020
5
GAT
actual #5 vs paper #41 36 places worse
0.9786 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #41 36 places worse
paper 0.8008 ±0.0004
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #36 27 places worse
0.9744 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #36 27 places worse
paper 0.8112 ±0.0037
11
SAGE
0.9709 ±0.0100
39
NodePFN
0.8066 ±0.0025
This paper
40
GraphAny(Cora)
0.8046 ±0.0015
This paper
43
MLP
0.8000
This paper

Tolokers

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
NT*
0.8591 ±0.0083
2
Polynormer
0.8591 ±0.0074
3
Dir-NT
0.8502 ±0.0077
7
GCN
actual #7 vs paper #12 5 places worse
0.8364 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #12 5 places worse
paper 0.7993 ±0.0010
paper 0.7993 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0371
20
NodePFN
0.7861 ±0.0006
This paper
22
GAT
actual #22 vs paper #22
0.7850 ±0.0055
actual #22 vs paper #22
paper 0.7850 ±0.0055

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7850 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0028
26
GraphAny(Wisconsin)
0.7824 ±0.0003
This paper
28
MLP
0.7816 ±0.0002
This paper

Questions

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MLP
0.9733 ±0.0006
This paper
2
AGS-GNN
0.9727
3
MeanGNN
0.9716 ±0.0006
4
GCN
0.9715 ±0.0004
This paper
5
GAT
actual #5 vs paper #5
0.9713 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #5
paper 0.9711 ±0.0002

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9711 ±0.0002 Δ at pub 0.0002
6
GraphAny(Wisconsin)
0.9711
This paper
12
NodePFN
0.9702 ±0.0001
This paper
33
SAGE
0.7644

LINKX Benchmarks

Deezer

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CLP
0.6569 ±0.0032
2
FAGCN
0.6504 ±0.0045
3
CPGNN
0.6495 ±0.0039
6
MLP
actual #6 vs paper #14 8 places worse
0.6377 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #14 8 places worse
paper 0.5424 ±0.0215
paper 0.5424 ±0.0215 Δ at pub 0.0953
10
GCN
actual #10 vs paper #14 4 places worse
0.5994 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #14 4 places worse
paper 0.5369 ±0.0229
paper 0.5369 ±0.0229 Δ at pub 0.0625
12
GAT
actual #12 vs paper #12
0.5599 ±0.0378
actual #12 vs paper #12
paper 0.5599 ±0.0378
paper 0.5599 ±0.0378 Δ at pub 0.3165
15
NodePFN
0.5345 ±0.0065
This paper
16
GraphAny(Wisconsin)
0.5213 ±0.0302
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