NeurIPS 2021

Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Cellular: CW Networks

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

Main figure for Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Cellular: CW Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are limited in their expressive power, struggle with long-range interactions and lack a principled way to model higher-order structures. These problems can be attributed to the strong coupling between the computational graph and the input graph structure. The recently proposed Message Passing Simplicial Networks naturally decouple these elements by performing message passing on the clique complex of the graph. Nevertheless, these models can be severely constrained by the rigid combinatorial structure of Simplicial Complexes (SCs). In this work, we extend recent theoretical results on SCs to regular Cell Complexes, topological objects that flexibly subsume SCs and graphs. We show that this generalisation provides a powerful set of graph"lifting"transformations, each leading to a unique hierarchical message passing procedure. The resulting methods, which we collectively call CW Networks (CWNs), are strictly more powerful than the WL test and not less powerful than the 3-WL test. In particular, we demonstrate the effectiveness of one such scheme, based on rings, when applied to molecular graph problems. The proposed architecture benefits from provably larger expressivity than commonly used GNNs, principled modelling of higher-order signals and from compressing the distances between nodes. We demonstrate that our model achieves state-of-the-art results on a variety of molecular datasets.

Proposed method: CIN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
TIGT
0.0140 ±0.0010
2
FloydNet
0.0160
3
GSSC
0.0190 ±0.0010
7
CIN
actual #7 vs paper #8 1 place worse
0.0210 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #8 1 place worse
paper 0.0220 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.0220 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0010
50
CIN-Small
0.0440 ±0.0030
This paper
69
GIN
0.0880 ±0.0020
This paper
79
GCN
0.1130 ±0.0020

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
26
CIN
actual #26 vs paper #48 22 places worse
0.9440 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #48 22 places worse
paper 0.9270 ±0.0610

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9270 ±0.0610 Δ today 0.0170
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
64
GSN
0.9220 ±0.0750
This paper
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
139
PPGNs
0.9060 ±0.0870
This paper
164
WL kernel
0.9040 ±0.0570
This paper
244
Natural GN
0.8940 ±0.0160
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
425
DGCNN
actual #425 vs paper #425
0.8583 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #425 vs paper #425
paper 0.8580 ±0.0180

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8580 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0003
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
492
IGN
0.8390 ±0.1300
This paper
584
GK (k=3)
0.8140 ±0.0170
This paper
643
RWK
0.7920 ±0.0210
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
19
CIN
actual #19 vs paper #47 28 places worse
0.8530 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #47 28 places worse
paper 0.8360 ±0.0140

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8360 ±0.0140 Δ today 0.0170
82
SIN
actual #82 vs paper #91 9 places worse
0.8280 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #91 9 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0210

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8270 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0010
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
12
CIN
actual #12 vs paper #83 71 places worse
0.8050 ±0.0390
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #83 71 places worse
paper 0.7700 ±0.0430

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7700 ±0.0430 Δ today 0.0350
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
118
SIN
0.7640 ±0.0330
This paper
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
430
GK (k=3)
0.7140 ±0.0030
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
15
CIN
0.9240 ±0.0210
This paper
13
GIN
0.9240 ±0.0250

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
27
CIN
1.0000
This paper
1
PPGN
1.0000
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
3
AgentNet
1.0000
8
GCN
1.0000
46
3WLGNN
0.9780 ±0.1092
This paper
69
RingGNN
actual #69 vs paper #72 3 places worse
0.1723 ±0.0633
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #72 3 places worse
paper 0.1000
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.1000 Δ today 0.0723
85
MP-GNNs
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 result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere