ICML 2021

Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Topological: Message Passing Simplicial Networks

Cristian Bodnar, Fabrizio Frasca, Yu Guang Wang, N. Otter, Guido Montúfar, Pietro Lio', M. Bronstein

Main figure for Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Topological: Message Passing Simplicial Networks

Abstract

The pairwise interaction paradigm of graph machine learning has predominantly governed the modelling of relational systems. However, graphs alone cannot capture the multi-level interactions present in many complex systems and the expressive power of such schemes was proven to be limited. To overcome these limitations, we propose Message Passing Simplicial Networks (MPSNs), a class of models that perform message passing on simplicial complexes (SCs). To theoretically analyse the expressivity of our model we introduce a Simplicial Weisfeiler-Lehman (SWL) colouring procedure for distinguishing non-isomorphic SCs. We relate the power of SWL to the problem of distinguishing non-isomorphic graphs and show that SWL and MPSNs are strictly more powerful than the WL test and not less powerful than the 3-WL test. We deepen the analysis by comparing our model with traditional graph neural networks (GNNs) with ReLU activations in terms of the number of linear regions of the functions they can represent. We empirically support our theoretical claims by showing that MPSNs can distinguish challenging strongly regular graphs for which GNNs fail and, when equipped with orientation equivariant layers, they can improve classification accuracy in oriented SCs compared to a GNN baseline.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
10
WL kernel
0.8600 ±0.0180
This paper
50
GSN
0.8350 ±0.0200
This paper
64
PPGNs
0.8320 ±0.0110
This paper
82
SIN
0.8280 ±0.0220
This paper
109
Natural GN
0.8240 ±0.0130
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
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 0.7440 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7440 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0210
428
IGN
actual #428 vs paper #430 2 places worse
0.7433 ±0.0271
best reported
actual #428 vs paper #430 2 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0270

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7430 ±0.0270 Δ today 0.0003
540
DCNN
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
0.6261
best reported
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
paper 0.5660 ±0.0100
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
13
GIN
0.9240 ±0.0250
This paper
20
SIN
0.9220 ±0.0100
This paper
72
WL kernel
0.8100 ±0.0310
This paper
84
GCN
0.7060 ±0.0369
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)