ICLR 2026

Bridging Input Feature Spaces Towards Graph Foundation Models

Moshe Eliasof, Krishna Sri Ipsit Mantri, Beatrice Bevilacqua, Bruno Ribeiro, C. Schonlieb

Main figure for Bridging Input Feature Spaces Towards Graph Foundation Models

Abstract

Unlike vision and language domains, graph learning lacks a shared input space, as input features differ across graph datasets not only in semantics, but also in value ranges and dimensionality. This misalignment prevents graph models from generalizing across datasets, limiting their use as foundation models. In this work, we propose ALL-IN, a simple and theoretically grounded method that enables transferability across datasets with different input features. Our approach projects node features into a shared random space and constructs representations via covariance-based statistics, thus eliminating dependence on the original feature space. We show that the computed node-covariance operators and the resulting node representations are invariant in distribution to permutations of the input features. We further demonstrate that the expected operator exhibits invariance to general orthogonal transformations of the input features. Empirically, ALL-IN achieves strong performance across diverse node- and graph-level tasks on unseen datasets with new input features, without requiring architecture changes or retraining. These results point to a promising direction for input-agnostic, transferable graph models.

Proposed method: All-In

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

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
20
All-In
0.2449 ±0.0012
This paper
49
GINE
actual #49 vs paper #184 135 places worse
0.2473 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #184 135 places worse
paper 0.3547 ±0.0045
paper 0.3547 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.1074 Δ today 0.1074
85
GPS
0.2500 ±0.0005
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
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)