NeurIPS 2022

How Powerful are $K$-hop Message Passing Graph Neural Networks

Jiarui Feng, Yixin Chen, Fuhai Li, Anindya Sarkar, Muhan Zhang

Main figure for How Powerful are $K$-hop Message Passing Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

The most popular design paradigm for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) is 1-hop message passing---aggregating information from 1-hop neighbors repeatedly. However, the expressive power of 1-hop message passing is bounded by the Weisfeiler-Lehman (1-WL) test. Recently, researchers extended 1-hop message passing to $K$-hop message passing by aggregating information from $K$-hop neighbors of nodes simultaneously. However, there is no work on analyzing the expressive power of $K$-hop message passing. In this work, we theoretically characterize the expressive power of $K$-hop message passing. Specifically, we first formally differentiate two different kernels of $K$-hop message passing which are often misused in previous works. We then characterize the expressive power of $K$-hop message passing by showing that it is more powerful than 1-WL and can distinguish almost all regular graphs. Despite the higher expressive power, we show that $K$-hop message passing still cannot distinguish some simple regular graphs and its expressive power is bounded by 3-WL. To further enhance its expressive power, we introduce a KP-GNN framework, which improves $K$-hop message passing by leveraging the peripheral subgraph information in each hop. We show that KP-GNN can distinguish many distance regular graphs which could not be distinguished by previous distance encoding or 3-WL methods. Experimental results verify the expressive power and effectiveness of KP-GNN. KP-GNN achieves competitive results across all benchmark datasets.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 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
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 0.0390
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #159
0.9040 ±0.0570
actual #159 vs paper #159
paper 0.9040 ±0.0570

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9040 ±0.0570 Δ at pub 0.0420
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 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8580 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0003
#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 #154 122 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #154 122 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0280

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7590 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0290
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
132
DGCNN
actual #132 vs paper #190 58 places worse
0.7626
best reported
actual #132 vs paper #190 58 places worse
paper 0.7550 ±0.0090
best at pub: Orthogonal Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7550 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0076
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
190
WL
actual #190 vs paper #245 55 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #245 55 places worse
paper 0.7500 ±0.0310

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7500 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0060
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
25
WL
actual #25 vs paper #36 11 places worse
0.7978 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #36 11 places worse
paper 0.7940 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7940 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0038 Δ today 0.0038
37
DGCNN
actual #37 vs paper #37
0.7937
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #37
paper 0.7930 ±0.0090
best today: Orthogonal Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7930 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0007 Δ today 0.0007
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)