AI Paper Atlas

Research map / Graph learning / GNN architectures

Substructure-aware GNN expressivity

Analyze GNN capability to count motifs and substructures, including topological and geometric variants.

50 accepted papers at ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR and AAAI (2018–2026) · an approach in GNN architectures, keyword cluster “wl · expressive · power”

State History Benchmarks Tried Baselines Checklist Preprints Who Export

Where it stands

Few recent reports The tracked benchmarks have at most one report from 2025–26 that could beat the old record, too few to say whether they are still moving.

16 papers in 2023–24 and 17 in 2025–26 (at ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR and AAAI); its share of the topic held steady, from 3.4% to 3.3%.

No longer reported by papers here: PROTEINS (accuracy, last in 2024); IMDB-B (accuracy, last in 2024); CSL (accuracy (%), last in 2024).

How this is decided

A benchmark is tracked when at least four papers of this approach report their own method on the same dataset and metric in at least two different years. Its record is the best number reported up to 2024 compared with the best reported in 2025–26: still improving means at least 1% better, flat means at most 0.2% better with at least two papers from 2025–26 trying. Numbers on a different scale from the rest (a fraction among percentages) and far outliers are left out. Results come from different papers with different setups, so they are signals, not head-to-head comparisons. The share of papers is counted at ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR and AAAI.

How it got here

2016: 0162017: 0172018: 1182019: 3192020: 3202021: 1212022: 9222023: 8232024: 8242025: 11252026: 626

Most cited paper of each year

Earliest papers here

Benchmark records

The best number each year that beat every earlier one, among papers of this approach reporting their own method. Numbers are extracted by AI from each paper's text; check the paper before citing.

NCI1 · accuracy (higher is better)

9 papers, 2020–2025 · one report since 2024, not better

2020: 91.4
20202025
YearBest so farSet by
202091.4Weisfeiler and Leman go sparse: Towards scalable higher-order graph embeddings (NeurIPS 2020 · 41 citations)

PROTEINS · accuracy (higher is better)

8 papers, 2019–2024 · not reported since 2024

2019: 75.72020: 79.32023: 79.8
20192024

MUTAG · accuracy (higher is better)

7 papers, 2019–2025 · one report since 2024, not better

2019: 86.82020: 89.282022: 91.12023: 95.2
20192025
YearBest so farSet by
201986.8On the equivalence between graph isomorphism testing and function approximation with GNNs (NeurIPS 2019 · 37 citations)
202089.28Graph Homomorphism Convolution (ICML 2020 · 5 citations)
202291.1Equivariant Subgraph Aggregation Networks (ICLR 2022 · 12 citations)
202395.2Substructure Aware Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023 · 56 citations)

IMDB-B · accuracy (higher is better)

6 papers, 2021–2024 · not reported since 2024

2021: 75.62022: 77.12024: 81.1
20212024
YearBest so farSet by
202175.6Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Topological: Message Passing Simplicial Networks (ICML 2021 · 45 citations)
202277.1Equivariant Subgraph Aggregation Networks (ICLR 2022 · 12 citations)
202481.1Non-convolutional graph neural networks. (NeurIPS 2024 · 5 citations)

NCI109 · accuracy (higher is better)

5 papers, 2020–2025 · one report since 2024, not better

2020: 89.3
20202025
YearBest so farSet by
202089.3Weisfeiler and Leman go sparse: Towards scalable higher-order graph embeddings (NeurIPS 2020 · 41 citations)

CSL · accuracy (%) (higher is better)

4 papers, 2020–2024 · not reported since 2024

2020: 100
20202024
YearBest so farSet by
2020100Graph Homomorphism Convolution (ICML 2020 · 5 citations)

What has been tried

40 papers here report 411 measured changes (a component added, removed or swapped, compared with a baseline): helped 67%, no clear effect 10%, hurt 17%, mixed 6%. Papers mostly publish changes that helped, so "helped" is over-represented.

Ablations in recent papers

What was changedMeasured onResultEffectPaper
add topological walk representation ωuCora · accuracy82.2 ± 1.0 -> 84.1 (± 0.9)HelpedNon-convolutional graph neural networks. (NeurIPS 2024 · 5 citations)
Encode Hom(spasm(P6)) counts with an MLP instead of positional encodingCOLLAB · Hits@50HurtHomomorphism Counts for Graph Neural Networks: All About That Basis (ICML 2024 · 1 citation)
combine k=0 and k=D kernels rather than use either aloneCoreness · micro F1-score87.0 -> 91.3; 39.1 -> 91.3HelpedGeneralizing Weisfeiler-Lehman Kernels to Subgraphs (ICLR 2025 · 0 citations)
Use SchNet on the 2-power graph rather than the original graphPair a · accuracy50.0 { { ± 0.0}} -> 100.0 { { ± 0.0}}HelpedOn the Expressive Power of Sparse Geometric MPNNs (ICLR 2025 · 0 citations)
fine-tune the Llama3-8b reader with QLoRAogbn-arxiv · accuracy73.17% -> 74.95%HelpedRevisiting Random Walks for Learning on Graphs (ICLR 2025 · 0 citations)
Use cycles of lengths 2 to 10 rather than cycles of lengths 2 to 4EXP · accuracy (%)50 -> 98HelpedDeep Homomorphism Networks (NeurIPS 2024 · 0 citations)
remove singleton hyperedges when extracting induced sub-hypergraphsIMDB-DIR-FORM · accuracy58.55±1.5 -> 68.11±2.4HelpedImproved Expressivity of Hypergraph Neural Networks through High-Dimensional Generalized Weisfeiler-Leman Algorithms (ICML 2025)
Increase r from 0 to 5 in ℓGINZINC12K · test MAE0.209±0.007 -> 0.072±0.002HelpedWeisfeiler and Leman Go Loopy: A New Hierarchy for Graph Representational Learning (NeurIPS 2024)

Baseline numbers that disagree

The same baseline on the same benchmark and metric, reported more than 5% apart by different papers here. Training budgets, data splits and reimplementations differ, so state which number you compare with.

BaselineBenchmarkMetricReportedPapers
GINNCI1accuracy76.89 – 82.72 papers, e.g. NeurIPS 2023 and ICLR 2022
GINNCI109accuracy76.9 – 82.22 papers, e.g. NeurIPS 2023 and ICLR 2022
PersLayNCI1accuracy68.86 – 73.52 papers, e.g. NeurIPS 2023 and ICLR 2022

What reviewers will expect

Datasets and baselines named in the 14 papers of this approach from 2025–2026 that have a full-text summary. Leaving out the common ones is a frequent review question.

Datasets

  • BREC · 4 of 14 papers
  • ZINC · 3 of 14 papers
  • minimal Cayley graphs · 2 of 14 papers
  • NCI1 · 2 of 14 papers
  • NCI109 · 2 of 14 papers
  • ZINC12K · 2 of 14 papers

Baselines

  • GCN · 5 of 14 papers
  • GIN · 4 of 14 papers
  • GraphSAGE · 3 of 14 papers
  • GraphGPS · 2 of 14 papers
  • GatedGCN · 2 of 14 papers
  • GAT · 2 of 14 papers

Recent preprints

Loading recent arXiv preprints…

    Who publishes on it

    Institutions on the most papers of this approach since 2023 (of 33 papers; from OpenAlex and the papers' affiliations).

    Use it

    Download BibTeX of 39 key papersOpen the topic in the interactive map

    Get alerts. Describe your idea in scime atlas and save it (free scime account): you get a weekly email when new preprints land close to it.

    Same keyword cluster

    Elsewhere in the topic

    Benchmark numbers, ablations and baseline numbers are extracted by AI from each paper's full text and can be wrong; the paper is the authority. Data: results index of 2026-11-02, citation counts from OpenAlex (2026-10-09).

    Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

    Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy