Latent-Hysteresis Graph ODEs: Modeling Coupled Topology-Feature Evolution via Continuous Phase Transitions

Qinhan Hou, Jingcheng Tang

Main figure for Latent-Hysteresis Graph ODEs: Modeling Coupled Topology-Feature Evolution via Continuous Phase Transitions

Abstract

Graph neural ordinary differential equations (Graph ODEs) extend graph learning from discrete message-passing layers to continuous-time representation flows. While it supports adaptive long-range propagation, we show that Graph ODEs with strictly positive irreducible mixing operators face an inherent monostability trap: in the long-time regime, information leakage is unavoidable and the dynamics converge to a single global consensus attractor. We propose the Hysteresis Graph ODE (HGODE), which couples feature evolution with a latent topological potential driven by a learned pairwise force. A double-well edge potential and bipolarized gate allow edge states to polarize into connected or insulated phases while preserving differentiability. We provide asymptotic analysis of the collapse mechanism and the proposed hysteretic topology dynamics, and validate HGODE on theory-driven synthetic diagnostics and real-world graph benchmarks.

Proposed method: HGODE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 11 baseline values reported too low

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 #214 193 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #214 193 places worse
paper 0.8527 ±0.0055
paper 0.8527 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0477
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
45
GCNII
actual #45 vs paper #237 192 places worse
0.8893 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #237 192 places worse
paper 0.8474 ±0.0010
best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023)
paper 0.8474 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0419 Δ today 0.0419
87
GRAND
actual #87 vs paper #340 253 places worse
0.8815
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #340 253 places worse
paper 0.8361 ±0.0037
paper 0.8361 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0454
104
GREAD-Exp
0.8794 ±0.0042
This paper
129
GREAD-BS
0.8733 ±0.0084
This paper
170
FLODE
actual #170 vs paper #170
0.8644 ±0.0117
actual #170 vs paper #170
paper 0.8644 ±0.0117
paper 0.8644 ±0.0117 Δ at pub 0.0837
179
HGODE
0.8626 ±0.0078
This paper
185
BuNN
0.8610 ±0.0048
This paper
202
Sheaf Diff.
0.8553 ±0.0064
This paper
233
SGFormer
actual #233 vs paper #250 17 places worse
0.8459 ±0.0043
actual #233 vs paper #250 17 places worse
paper 0.8459 ±0.0043

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8459 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0009
237
ACMP
actual #237 vs paper #237
0.8476 ±0.0074
actual #237 vs paper #237
paper 0.8476 ±0.0074

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8476 ±0.0074 Δ at pub 0.0016
241
FROND
0.8467 ±0.0086
This paper
272
DRAGON
0.8430 ±0.0061
This paper
283
CGNN
actual #283 vs paper #336 53 places worse
0.8420 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #283 vs paper #336 53 places worse
paper 0.8368 ±0.0046
best at pub: Continuous Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2019)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8368 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0052
314
GraphGPS
actual #314 vs paper #433 119 places worse
0.8295 ±0.0123
actual #314 vs paper #433 119 places worse
paper 0.8295 ±0.0123

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8295 ±0.0123 Δ at pub 0.0011
317
GDE
actual #317 vs paper #471 154 places worse
0.8380 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #317 vs paper #471 154 places worse
paper 0.8244 ±0.0081
best at pub: GRAND: Graph Neural Diffusion (ICML 2021)
best today: Framelet Message Passing (2023)
paper 0.8244 ±0.0081 Δ at pub 0.0136 Δ today 0.0136
381
Polynormer
actual #381 vs paper #401 20 places worse
0.8343 ±0.0089
best reported
actual #381 vs paper #401 20 places worse
paper 0.8324 ±0.0072

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8324 ±0.0072 Δ today 0.0019
724
MLP
0.7768

OGB

#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Large
0.3150 ±0.0010
2
Graphormer
0.3140
3
Graphormer-FLAG
0.3139 ±0.0032
24
Subgraphormer
0.2930 ±0.0040
This paper
29
GraphGPS
actual #29 vs paper #29
0.2910 ±0.0010
actual #29 vs paper #29
paper 0.2910 ±0.0010

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2910 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0003
31
GIN
0.2902 ±0.0017
48
HGODE
0.2780 ±0.0030
This paper
56
GCN
actual #56 vs paper #56
0.2690 ±0.0020
actual #56 vs paper #56
paper 0.2690 ±0.0020
paper 0.2690 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0266
58
FLODE
0.2670 ±0.0040
This paper
61
DRAGON
0.2660 ±0.0020
This paper
62
GCNII
0.2650 ±0.0030
This paper
64
Sheaf Diff.
0.2630 ±0.0020
This paper
66
GREAD-Exp
0.2620 ±0.0010
This paper
68
GRAND
0.2600 ±0.0030
This paper
69
FROND
0.2600 ±0.0050
This paper
71
GREAD-BS
0.2570 ±0.0040
This paper
74
CGNN
0.2520 ±0.0030
This paper
78
GDE
0.2470 ±0.0020
This paper
79
BuNN
0.2450 ±0.0040
This paper
91
ACMP
0.2260 ±0.0050
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
LD
0.8942 ±0.0007
2
X_WO/LD
0.8915 ±0.0012
3
X_PNE
0.8894 ±0.0014
16
GraphSAGE
0.8430
17
GCN
actual #17 vs paper #43 26 places worse
0.8320
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #43 26 places worse
paper 0.7784 ±0.0056
22
HGODE
0.8124 ±0.0063
This paper
24
DRAGON
0.8046 ±0.0042
This paper
25
FROND
0.8026 ±0.0049
This paper
27
SGFormer
actual #27 vs paper #27
0.7984 ±0.0061
actual #27 vs paper #27
paper 0.7984 ±0.0061

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7984 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0031
30
Polynormer
actual #30 vs paper #30
0.7941 ±0.0056
actual #30 vs paper #30
paper 0.7941 ±0.0056
paper 0.7941 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0344
33
FLODE
0.7923 ±0.0075
This paper
34
GREAD-BS
0.7921 ±0.0074
This paper
35
Sheaf Diff.
0.7896 ±0.0056
This paper
37
BuNN
0.7892 ±0.0048
This paper
39
GREAD-Exp
0.7861 ±0.0068
This paper
46
GraphGPS
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.7725 ±0.0042
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.7725 ±0.0042

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7725 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0042
48
CGNN
0.7712 ±0.0061
This paper
52
GRAND
0.7645 ±0.0042
This paper
55
GCNII
actual #55 vs paper #55
0.7564 ±0.0048
actual #55 vs paper #55
paper 0.7564 ±0.0048

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7564 ±0.0048 Δ at pub 0.0085
58
GDE
0.7463 ±0.0020
This paper
68
ACMP
0.6572 ±0.0072
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
36
HGODE
0.7256 ±0.0124
This paper
39
FROND
0.7162 ±0.0161
This paper
42
GREAD-BS
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.7142 ±0.0178
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.7142 ±0.0178

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7142 ±0.0178 Δ at pub 0.0002
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #223 171 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #223 171 places worse
paper 0.4589 ±0.0286
paper 0.4589 ±0.0286 Δ at pub 0.2444
54
DRAGON
0.7014 ±0.0133
This paper
59
GREAD-Exp
0.6923 ±0.0114
This paper
60
BuNN
0.6913 ±0.0121
This paper
67
Sheaf Diff.
0.6816 ±0.0162
This paper
73
FLODE
0.6726 ±0.0137
This paper
103
GCNII
actual #103 vs paper #228 125 places worse
0.6386 ±0.0304
best reported
actual #103 vs paper #228 125 places worse
paper 0.4447 ±0.0148
paper 0.4447 ±0.0148 Δ at pub 0.1939 Δ today 0.1939
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
138
Polynormer
actual #138 vs paper #246 108 places worse
0.6000 ±0.0180
best reported
actual #138 vs paper #246 108 places worse
paper 0.4169 ±0.0322
paper 0.4169 ±0.0322 Δ at pub 0.1831
143
CGNN
actual #143 vs paper #189 46 places worse
0.5910 ±0.0078
best reported
actual #143 vs paper #189 46 places worse
paper 0.5135 ±0.0158
paper 0.5135 ±0.0158 Δ at pub 0.0775
151
GRAND
actual #151 vs paper #151
0.5772 ±0.0186
actual #151 vs paper #151
paper 0.5772 ±0.0186

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5772 ±0.0186 Δ at pub 0.0305
158
ACMP
0.5624 ±0.0201
This paper
159
GraphGPS
actual #159 vs paper #249 90 places worse
0.5620 ±0.0380
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #249 90 places worse
paper 0.4104 ±0.0387
paper 0.4104 ±0.0387 Δ at pub 0.1516
169
MLP
0.5429
188
SGFormer
actual #188 vs paper #223 35 places worse
0.5140 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #188 vs paper #223 35 places worse
paper 0.4577 ±0.0348
paper 0.4577 ±0.0348 Δ at pub 0.0563
208
GDE
actual #208 vs paper #223 15 places worse
0.4780 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #208 vs paper #223 15 places worse
paper 0.4563 ±0.0247

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4563 ±0.0247 Δ at pub 0.0217

LRGB

#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
actual #3 vs paper #18 15 places worse
0.7276 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #18 15 places worse
paper 0.7120 ±0.0670

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7120 ±0.0670 Δ at pub 0.0156
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #10 6 places worse
0.7160 ±0.0050
actual #4 vs paper #10 6 places worse
paper 0.7160 ±0.0050
paper 0.7160 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0300 Δ today 0.0101
6
DRAGON
0.7240 ±0.0450
This paper
15
HGODE
0.7140 ±0.0220
This paper
19
GREAD-Exp
0.7110 ±0.0400
This paper
26
GIN
0.7059 ±0.0089
28
GREAD-BS
0.7040 ±0.0460
This paper
35
GCNII
actual #35 vs paper #35
0.6990 ±0.0030
actual #35 vs paper #35
paper 0.6990 ±0.0030
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.6990 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.1447
37
FROND
0.6980 ±0.0340
This paper
57
ACMP
0.6790 ±0.0510
This paper
58
Sheaf Diff.
0.6780 ±0.0470
This paper
61
FLODE
0.6740 ±0.0410
This paper
75
GRAND
actual #75 vs paper #75
0.6630 ±0.0160
actual #75 vs paper #75
paper 0.6630 ±0.0160
paper 0.6630 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0841
79
GraphGPS
actual #79 vs paper #89 10 places worse
0.6620 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #89 10 places worse
paper 0.6550 ±0.0040

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6550 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0070
80
Subgraphormer
0.6610 ±0.0050
This paper
102
CGNN
0.6510 ±0.0370
This paper
121
GDE
0.6320 ±0.0140
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result