NeurIPS 2019

On the Equivalence between Graph Isomorphism Testing and Function Approximation with GNNs

Zhengdao Chen, Soledad Villar, Lei Chen, Joan Bruna

Main figure for 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.

Proposed method: Ring-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 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
398
Ring-GNN
0.8680 ±0.0640
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
462
2-IGN
0.8460 ±0.1000
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
#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
30
GIN
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
0.8020 ±0.0190
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0190
paper 0.8020 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0600
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

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
PPGN
1.0000
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
3
AgentNet
1.0000
8
GCN
1.0000
40
GIN
actual #40 vs paper #72 32 places worse
0.9933 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #72 32 places worse
paper 0.1000
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.1000 Δ today 0.8933
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
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) 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