On the Equivalence between Graph Isomorphism Testing and Function Approximation with GNNs
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved much success on graph-structured data. In light of this, there have been increasing interests in studying their expressive power. One line of work studies the capability of GNNs to approximate permutation-invariant functions on graphs, and another focuses on the their power as tests for graph isomorphism. Our work connects these two perspectives and proves their equivalence. We further develop a framework of the expressive power of GNNs that incorporates both of these viewpoints using the language of sigma-algebra, through which we compare the expressive power of different types of GNNs together with other graph isomorphism tests. In particular, we prove that the second-order Invariant Graph Network fails to distinguish non-isomorphic regular graphs with the same degree. Then, we extend it to a new architecture, Ring-GNN, which succeeds in distinguishing these graphs and achieves good performances on real-world datasets.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 4 datasets
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 | 0.9330
±0.0290 | |
| 398 | Ring-GNN | 0.8680
±0.0640 | This paper |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 462 | 2-IGN | 0.8460
±0.1000 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9410
±0.0330 | |
| 2 | GRDL | 0.8260
±0.0120 | |
| 3 | GMN | 0.8225 | |
| 32 | GIN | 0.7880
±0.0410 | |
| 149 | MLP | 0.7600
±0.0320 | |
| 176 | Ring-GNN | 0.7570
±0.0290 | This paper |
| 227 | 2-IGN | 0.7520
±0.0430 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 30 | GIN | 0.8020
±0.0190 | prev best: Edge Contraction Pooling for Graph Neural Networks (2019) |
| 121 | Ring-GNN | 0.8010
±0.0140 | This paper |
| 151 | MLP | 0.7920
±0.0240 | |
| 181 | 2-IGN | 0.7790
±0.0170 | This paper |
GNNBenchmark
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PPGN | 1.0000 | |
| 2 | RW-AgentNet | 1.0000 | |
| 3 | AgentNet | 1.0000 | |
| 8 | GCN | 1.0000 | |
| 40 | GIN | 0.9933
±0.0133 best reported | best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023) |
| 55 | Ring-GNN | 0.8000
±0.1570 | This paper |
| 56 | sGNN_5 | 0.8000 | This paper |
| 58 | RP-GIN | 0.5330
±0.1290 | This paper |
| 63 | sGNN_2 | 0.3000 | This paper |
| 64 | LGNN | 0.3000 | This paper |
| 76 | 2-IGN | 0.1000 | This paper |
| 77 | sGNN_1 | 0.1000 | This paper |
