ICLR 2018

How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?

Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, J. Leskovec, S. Jegelka

Main figure for How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are an effective framework for representation learning of graphs. GNNs follow a neighborhood aggregation scheme, where the representation vector of a node is computed by recursively aggregating and transforming representation vectors of its neighboring nodes. Many GNN variants have been proposed and have achieved state-of-the-art results on both node and graph classification tasks. However, despite GNNs revolutionizing graph representation learning, there is limited understanding of their representational properties and limitations. Here, we present a theoretical framework for analyzing the expressive power of GNNs to capture different graph structures. Our results characterize the discriminative power of popular GNN variants, such as Graph Convolutional Networks and GraphSAGE, and show that they cannot learn to distinguish certain simple graph structures. We then develop a simple architecture that is provably the most expressive among the class of GNNs and is as powerful as the Weisfeiler-Lehman graph isomorphism test. We empirically validate our theoretical findings on a number of graph classification benchmarks, and demonstrate that our model achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
54
PatchySan
0.9260 ±0.0420
This paper
167
WL subtree
0.9040 ±0.0570
This paper
192
Sum--1-Layer
0.9000 ±0.0880
This paper
247
Sum--MLP (GIN-0)
0.8940 ±0.0560
This paper
337
AWL
0.8790 ±0.0980
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
425
DGCNN
actual #425 vs paper #425
0.8583 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #425 vs paper #425
paper 0.8580

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8580 Δ today 0.0003
434
Mean--1-Layer (GCN)
0.8560 ±0.0580
This paper
447
Max--1-Layer (GraphSAGE)
0.8510 ±0.0760
This paper
490
Max--MLP
0.8400 ±0.0610
This paper
509
Mean--MLP
0.8350 ±0.0630
This paper
770
DCNN
actual #770 vs paper #770
0.6700
actual #770 vs paper #770
paper 0.6700
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
97
Sum--1-Layer
0.8060 ±0.0190
This paper
113
Sum--MLP (GIN-0)
0.8020 ±0.0190
This paper
152
Mean--MLP
0.7920 ±0.0230
This paper
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
161
Mean--1-Layer (GCN)
0.7900 ±0.0180
This paper
163
WL subtree
0.7890 ±0.0190
This paper
191
DGCNN
actual #191 vs paper #269 78 places worse
0.7759 ±0.0224
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #269 78 places worse
paper 0.7370
paper 0.7370 Δ today 0.0389
268
AWL
0.7390 ±0.0190
This paper
280
PatchySan
0.7260 ±0.0220
This paper
344
DCNN
actual #344 vs paper #344
0.5211 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #344 vs paper #344
paper 0.5210
best today: Natural Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5210 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0001
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
16
Sum--MLP (GIN-0)
0.9240 ±0.0250
This paper
13
GIN
0.9240 ±0.0250
38
Sum--1-Layer
0.9000 ±0.0270
This paper
52
AWL
0.8790 ±0.0250
This paper
60
PatchySan
0.8630 ±0.0160
This paper
71
WL subtree
0.8100 ±0.0310
This paper
89
Mean--MLP
0.5000
This paper
90
Mean--1-Layer (GCN)
0.5000
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere