Invariant-Based Diagnostics for Graph Benchmarks

Richard von Moos, Mathieu Alain, Bastian Rieck

Main figure for Invariant-Based Diagnostics for Graph Benchmarks

Abstract

Progress on graph foundation models is hindered by benchmark practices that conflate the contributions of node features and graph structure, making it hard to tell whether a model actually learns from connectivity, or whether it even needs to. We propose addressing this using graph invariants, i.e., permutation-invariant, task-agnostic structural descriptors that serve as a diagnostic framework for graph benchmarks. We show that (i) invariants are more expressive than standard GNNs, (ii) invariants characterize structural heterogeneity within and across benchmark datasets, (iii) invariants predict multi-task performance, and (iv) simple invariant-based models are competitive with, and sometimes exceed, transformer and message-passing baselines across 26 datasets. Our results suggest that expressivity is not the main driver of predictive performance, and that on tasks where structure matters, a non-trainable structural proxy often matches trained message-passing models. We thus posit that invariant baselines should become a standard for evaluating whether structure is required for a task and whether a model picks up on it, serving as a stepping stone towards graph foundation models.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
ProtoMol
0.9140 ±0.0030
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
3
MemGNN
0.9070
9
MolCLR
actual #9 vs paper #120 111 places worse
0.8900 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #120 111 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0090
20
D-MPNN
actual #20 vs paper #162 142 places worse
0.8780 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #162 142 places worse
paper 0.8090 ±0.0060
43
GIN
0.8646 ±0.0081
45
AttentiveFP
actual #45 vs paper #211 166 places worse
0.8630 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #211 166 places worse
paper 0.7840
58
GROVER_large
actual #58 vs paper #156 98 places worse
0.8580
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #156 98 places worse
paper 0.8100 ±0.0140
paper 0.8100 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0480
61
Uni-Mol
0.8570 ±0.0020
This paper
62
GEM
0.8560 ±0.0110
This paper
83
PretrainGNN
0.8450 ±0.0070
This paper
116
GROVER_base
0.8260 ±0.0070
This paper
123
agg + I
0.8239 ±0.0053
This paper
149
GraphMVP
0.8120 ±0.0090
This paper
200
N-Gram_XGB
0.7910 ±0.0130
This paper
217
N-Gram_RF
0.7790 ±0.0150
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
MAGPrompt+
0.9432 ±0.0238
2
CamS-LLaMA
0.9420
3
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9400 ±0.0210
26
D-MPNN
actual #26 vs paper #121 95 places worse
0.9130 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #121 95 places worse
paper 0.7100 ±0.0030
29
GROVER_large
actual #29 vs paper #166 137 places worse
0.9110
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #166 137 places worse
paper 0.6950 ±0.0010
paper 0.6950 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.2160
31
AttentiveFP
actual #31 vs paper #279 248 places worse
0.9080 ±0.0500
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #279 248 places worse
paper 0.6430 ±0.0180
34
GIN
0.8875 ±0.0049
49
GraphMVP
actual #49 vs paper #92 43 places worse
0.8600 ±0.0340
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #92 43 places worse
paper 0.7240 ±0.0160
paper 0.7240 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.1360
72
agg + I
0.7408
This paper
78
MolCLR
actual #78 vs paper #96 18 places worse
0.7360 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #96 18 places worse
paper 0.7220 ±0.0210

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7220 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0140 Δ today 0.0140
84
Uni-Mol
0.7290 ±0.0060
This paper
93
GEM
0.7240 ±0.0040
This paper
151
GROVER_base
0.7000 ±0.0010
This paper
159
N-Gram_RF
0.6970 ±0.0060
This paper
175
N-Gram_XGB
0.6910 ±0.0080
This paper
186
PretrainGNN
0.6870 ±0.0130
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)