ICML 2026

Learning Graph Foundation Models on Riemannian Graph-of-Graphs

Haokun Liu, Zezhong Ding, Xike Xie

Main figure for Learning Graph Foundation Models on Riemannian Graph-of-Graphs

Abstract

Graph foundation models (GFMs), pretrained on massive graph data, have transformed graph machine learning by supporting general-purpose reasoning across diverse graph tasks and domains. Existing GFMs pretrained with fixed-hop subgraph sampling impose a fixed receptive field, causing scale mismatch on diverse tasks, which often require heterogeneous and unknown structural contexts beyond a fixed sampling scale. We propose R-GFM, a Riemannian Graph-of-Graphs (GoG) based foundation model, that treats structural scale as a first-class citizen in modeling. R-GFM constructs a multi-scale GoG over-sampled subgraphs at different hop distances and learns geometry-adaptive representations from Riemannian manifolds. Theoretical analysis shows that R-GFM reduces structural domain generalization error compared to fixed-scale GFMs. Experiments on various datasets demonstrate that R-GFM achieves state-of-the-art performance, with up to a 49% relative improvement on downstream tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/USTC-DataDarknessLab/R-GFM.

Proposed method: R-GFM

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 7 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #568 530 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #568 530 places worse
paper 0.3190 ±0.1189
paper 0.3190 ±0.1189 Δ at pub 0.5662
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #569 501 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #569 501 places worse
paper 0.3117 ±0.1147
paper 0.3117 ±0.1147 Δ at pub 0.5506
138
SAGE
0.8269
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #581 423 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #581 423 places worse
paper 0.1651 ±0.0841
paper 0.1651 ±0.0841 Δ at pub 0.6539
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #577 407 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #577 407 places worse
paper 0.2000 ±0.0204
paper 0.2000 ±0.0204 Δ at pub 0.6082
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #581 398 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #581 398 places worse
paper 0.1714 ±0.0554
paper 0.1714 ±0.0554 Δ at pub 0.6236
350
DGI
actual #350 vs paper #570 220 places worse
0.6335
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #570 220 places worse
paper 0.3027 ±0.1448
384
GraphACL
actual #384 vs paper #572 188 places worse
0.5933 ±0.0148
best reported
actual #384 vs paper #572 188 places worse
paper 0.2703 ±0.0604
paper 0.2703 ±0.0604 Δ at pub 0.3230 Δ today 0.3230
513
GraphCL
actual #513 vs paper #531 18 places worse
0.4722 ±0.0450
best reported
actual #513 vs paper #531 18 places worse
paper 0.4432 ±0.1346

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4432 ±0.1346 Δ at pub 0.0290
559
R-GFM
0.3671 ±0.0992
This paper
560
GPF
actual #560 vs paper #560
0.3622 ±0.0946
actual #560 vs paper #560
paper 0.3622 ±0.0946

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3622 ±0.0946 Δ at pub 0.0731
561
SAMGPT
0.3622 ±0.0530
This paper
563
GPPT
actual #563 vs paper #563
0.3568 ±0.0963
actual #563 vs paper #563
paper 0.3568 ±0.0963

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3568 ±0.0963 Δ at pub 0.0667
565
G2PM
0.3296 ±0.0544
This paper
567
GraphPrompt
actual #567 vs paper #567
0.3243 ±0.1081
actual #567 vs paper #567
paper 0.3243 ±0.1081

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3243 ±0.1081 Δ at pub 0.0861
569
RiemannGFM
0.3135 ±0.0776
This paper
572
GPM
0.2783 ±0.1100
This paper
574
MDGFM
0.2649 ±0.1073
This paper
576
GCOPE
0.2500 ±0.0658
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)