NeurIPS 2019

Provably Powerful Graph Networks

Haggai Maron, Heli Ben-Hamu, Hadar Serviansky, Y. Lipman

Main figure for 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.

Proposed method: WL

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

#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
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
0.8940 ±0.0560
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8940 ±0.0560

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.0310
51
PSCN
actual #51 vs paper #279 228 places worse
0.9263 ±0.0421
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #279 228 places worse
paper 0.8895 ±0.0440

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8895 ±0.0440 Δ at pub 0.0368 Δ today 0.0368
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
actual #159 vs paper #481 322 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #481 322 places worse
paper 0.8411 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8411 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0189 Δ today 0.0629
236
ECC
actual #236 vs paper #690 454 places worse
0.8944
best reported
actual #236 vs paper #690 454 places worse
paper 0.7611
237
Ours 3
0.8944 ±0.0805
This paper
289
Ours 2
0.8888 ±0.0740
This paper
294
1-2-3 GNN
actual #294 vs paper #417 123 places worse
0.8880 ±0.0700
best reported
actual #294 vs paper #417 123 places worse
paper 0.8610
best today: Agent-based Graph Neural Networks (ICLR 2022)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8610 Δ today 0.0270
342
AWE-FB
0.8787 ±0.0970
This paper
365
DGK
actual #365 vs paper #365
0.8744 ±0.0270
actual #365 vs paper #365
paper 0.8744 ±0.0270
prev best: Anonymous Walk Embeddings (ICML 2018)
paper 0.8744 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0478
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
425
DGCNN
0.8583 ±0.0170
This paper
467
PK
actual #467 vs paper #695 228 places worse
0.8450 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #467 vs paper #695 228 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0270
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.7600 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0850
498
Invariant Graph Networks
0.8389 ±0.1295
This paper
501
RW
actual #501 vs paper #643 142 places worse
0.8370 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #501 vs paper #643 142 places worse
paper 0.7917 ±0.0210
paper 0.7917 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0451 Δ today 0.0453
506
GK
actual #506 vs paper #586 80 places worse
0.8350 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #506 vs paper #586 80 places worse
paper 0.8139 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8139 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0019 Δ today 0.0211
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0170
paper 0.8270 ±0.0170 Δ today 0.1664
3
GCN
0.9727
12
WL
actual #12 vs paper #32 20 places worse
0.8590 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #32 20 places worse
paper 0.8446 ±0.0050
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8446 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0144
28
PK
actual #28 vs paper #101 73 places worse
0.8450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #101 73 places worse
paper 0.8254 ±0.0050
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8254 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0196
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
actual #291 vs paper #381 90 places worse
0.7859
best reported
actual #291 vs paper #381 90 places worse
paper 0.7634 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7634 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0225 Δ today 0.0225
373
DGCNN
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
0.7650 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
paper 0.7444 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7444 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0206
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
actual #519 vs paper #541 22 places worse
0.6249 ±0.0030
actual #519 vs paper #541 22 places worse
paper 0.6249 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6249 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0021 Δ today 0.0351
540
DCNN
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
0.6261
best reported
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
paper 0.5661 ±0.0100
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere