ICML 2021

Breaking the Limits of Message Passing Graph Neural Networks

M. Balcilar, P. Héroux, B. Gaüzère, P. Vasseur, S. Adam, P. Honeine

Main figure for Breaking the Limits of Message Passing Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Since the Message Passing (Graph) Neural Networks (MPNNs) have a linear complexity with respect to the number of nodes when applied to sparse graphs, they have been widely implemented and still raise a lot of interest even though their theoretical expressive power is limited to the first order Weisfeiler-Lehman test (1-WL). In this paper, we show that if the graph convolution supports are designed in spectral-domain by a non-linear custom function of eigenvalues and masked with an arbitrary large receptive field, the MPNN is theoretically more powerful than the 1-WL test and experimentally as powerful as a 3-WL existing models, while remaining spatially localized. Moreover, by designing custom filter functions, outputs can have various frequency components that allow the convolution process to learn different relationships between a given input graph signal and its associated properties. So far, the best 3-WL equivalent graph neural networks have a computational complexity in $ (n^3)$ with memory usage in $ (n^2)$, consider non-local update mechanism and do not provide the spectral richness of output profile. The proposed method overcomes all these aforementioned problems and reaches state-of-the-art results in many downstream tasks.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value 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
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8940 ±0.0560

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.0266 Δ today 0.0390
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #271 208 places worse
0.8910 ±0.0581
actual #63 vs paper #271 208 places worse
paper 0.8910 ±0.0581
prev best: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8910 ±0.0581 Δ at pub 0.0190
128
GNNML3
0.9090 ±0.0546
This paper
140
PPGN
actual #140 vs paper #179 39 places worse
0.9060 ±0.0870
best reported
actual #140 vs paper #179 39 places worse
paper 0.9020 ±0.0662

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9020 ±0.0662 Δ at pub 0.0035 Δ today 0.0040
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #183
0.9010 ±0.0584
actual #183 vs paper #183
paper 0.9010 ±0.0584

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9010 ±0.0584 Δ at pub 0.0070
194
GNNML1
0.9000 ±0.0042
This paper
217
ChebNet
0.8970 ±0.0641
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #141 109 places worse
0.7610 ±0.0397
actual #32 vs paper #141 109 places worse
paper 0.7610 ±0.0397

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7610 ±0.0397 Δ at pub 0.0073
49
GAT
actual #49 vs paper #154 105 places worse
0.7590 ±0.0426
actual #49 vs paper #154 105 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0426

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7590 ±0.0426 Δ at pub 0.0360
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
73
PPGN
0.7720 ±0.0453
This paper
121
ChebNet
0.7640 ±0.0534
This paper
120
GNNML3
0.7640 ±0.0510
This paper
149
MLP
actual #149 vs paper #298 149 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #149 vs paper #298 149 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0488

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7430 ±0.0488 Δ today 0.0170
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #224 76 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #224 76 places worse
paper 0.7520 ±0.0511
best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7520 ±0.0511 Δ at pub 0.0045 Δ today 0.0080
166
GNNML1
0.7580 ±0.0493
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #138 118 places worse
0.5410 ±0.0515
actual #20 vs paper #138 118 places worse
paper 0.5410 ±0.0515
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5410 ±0.0515 Δ at pub 0.0240 Δ today 0.1440
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #125 93 places worse
0.6767 ±0.0583
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #125 93 places worse
paper 0.5580 ±0.0523
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5580 ±0.0523 Δ at pub 0.0450 Δ today 0.1187
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #160 124 places worse
0.6650 ±0.0691
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #160 124 places worse
paper 0.4900 ±0.0425
best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)
paper 0.4900 ±0.0425 Δ at pub 0.1750
59
ChebNet
0.6380 ±0.0792
This paper
62
GNNML3
0.6360 ±0.0652
This paper
124
MLP
actual #124 vs paper #226 102 places worse
0.5583 ±0.0352
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #226 102 places worse
paper 0.3080 ±0.0426
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.3080 ±0.0426 Δ today 0.2503
129
PPGN
0.5520 ±0.0544
This paper
135
GNNML1
0.5490 ±0.0597
This paper
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere