Provably Powerful Graph Networks
Abstract
Recently, the Weisfeiler-Lehman (WL) graph isomorphism test was used to measure the expressive power of graph neural networks (GNN). It was shown that the popular message passing GNN cannot distinguish between graphs that are indistinguishable by the $1$-WL test. Unfortunately, many simple instances of graphs are indistinguishable by the $1$-WL test. In search for more expressive graph learning models we build upon the recent $k$-order invariant and equivariant graph neural networks and present two results: First, we show that such $k$-order networks can distinguish between non-isomorphic graphs as good as the $k$-WL tests, which are provably stronger than the $1$-WL test for $k>2$. This makes these models strictly stronger than message passing models. Unfortunately, the higher expressiveness of these models comes with a computational cost of processing high order tensors. Second, setting our goal at building a provably stronger, simple and scalable model we show that a reduced $2$-order network containing just scaled identity operator, augmented with a single quadratic operation (matrix multiplication) has a provable $3$-WL expressive power. Differently put, we suggest a simple model that interleaves applications of standard Multilayer-Perceptron (MLP) applied to the feature dimension and matrix multiplication. We validate this model by presenting state of the art results on popular graph classification and regression tasks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first practical invariant/equivariant model with guaranteed $3$-WL expressiveness, strictly stronger than message passing models.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 2 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9910
±0.0030 | |
| 2 | ID-GNN+BEC | 0.9830
±0.0360 | |
| 3 | SupCosine | 0.9830
±0.0250 | |
| 39 | GIN | 0.8940
±0.0560 | prev best: Graph Neural Networks With Convolutional ARMA Filters (2019) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 51 | PSCN | 0.9263
±0.0421 best reported | best at pub: Dynamic Edge-Conditioned Filters in Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs (2017) best today: Quaternion Graph Neural Networks (2020) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 63 | GCN | 0.9220
±0.0440 | |
| 67 | FGSD | 0.9212 | This paper |
| 82 | CCN | 0.9164
±0.0720 | This paper |
| 144 | Ours 1 | 0.9055
±0.0870 | This paper |
| 159 | WL | 0.9040
±0.0570 best reported | best at pub: On Valid Optimal Assignment Kernels and Applications to Graph Classification (NeurIPS 2016) best today: How Powerful are $K$-hop Message Passing Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 236 | ECC | 0.8944 best reported | |
| 237 | Ours 3 | 0.8944
±0.0805 | This paper |
| 289 | Ours 2 | 0.8888
±0.0740 | This paper |
| 294 | 1-2-3 GNN | 0.8880
±0.0700 best reported | best today: Agent-based Graph Neural Networks (ICLR 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 342 | AWE-FB | 0.8787
±0.0970 | This paper |
| 365 | DGK | 0.8744
±0.0270 | prev best: Anonymous Walk Embeddings (ICML 2018) |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 425 | DGCNN | 0.8583
±0.0170 | This paper |
| 467 | PK | 0.8450
±0.0060 best reported | best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014) |
| 498 | Invariant Graph Networks | 0.8389
±0.1295 | This paper |
| 501 | RW | 0.8370
±0.0150 best reported | best at pub: Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Graphs (ICML 2016) |
| 506 | GK | 0.8350
±0.0060 best reported | best at pub: Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Graphs (ICML 2016) best today: Supervised Contrastive Learning with Structure Inference for Graph Classification (2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WL-MLP | 0.9954 | |
| 2 | GIN | 0.9934 best reported | best today: 1-WL Expressiveness Is (Almost) All You Need (2022) |
| 3 | GCN | 0.9727 | |
| 12 | WL | 0.8590
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014) |
| 28 | PK | 0.8450
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014) |
| 69 | Ours 1 | 0.8319
±0.0111 | This paper |
| 131 | GraphSAGE | 0.8200
±0.0100 | |
| 168 | Ours 2 | 0.8121
±0.0214 | This paper |
| 179 | Ours 3 | 0.8097
±0.0191 | This paper |
| 210 | DGK | 0.8031
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 232 | FGSD | 0.7980 | This paper |
| 291 | PSCN | 0.7859 best reported | best at pub: Dynamic Edge-Conditioned Filters in Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs (2017) best today: Deep Learning on Attributed Graphs: A Journey from Graphs to Their Embeddings and Back (2018) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 373 | DGCNN | 0.7650
±0.0190 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Attributed Graphs: A Journey from Graphs to Their Embeddings and Back (2018) best today: GraphCrop: Subgraph Cropping for Graph Classification (2020) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 384 | CCN | 0.7627
±0.0410 | This paper |
| 389 | 1-2-3 GNN | 0.7620 | This paper |
| 429 | Invariant Graph Networks | 0.7433
±0.0271 | This paper |
| 519 | GK | 0.6249
±0.0030 | prev best: Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Graphs (ICML 2016) best today: GPS: graph contrastive learning via multi-scale augmented views from adversarial pooling (2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 540 | DCNN | 0.6261 best reported |
