ICLR 2022

Boosting the Cycle Counting Power of Graph Neural Networks with I$^2$-GNNs

Yinan Huang, Xingang Peng, Jianzhu Ma, Muhan Zhang

Main figure for Boosting the Cycle Counting Power of Graph Neural Networks with I$^2$-GNNs

Abstract

Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) are a widely used class of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). The limited representational power of MPNNs inspires the study of provably powerful GNN architectures. However, knowing one model is more powerful than another gives little insight about what functions they can or cannot express. It is still unclear whether these models are able to approximate specific functions such as counting certain graph substructures, which is essential for applications in biology, chemistry and social network analysis. Motivated by this, we propose to study the counting power of Subgraph MPNNs, a recent and popular class of powerful GNN models that extract rooted subgraphs for each node, assign the root node a unique identifier and encode the root node's representation within its rooted subgraph. Specifically, we prove that Subgraph MPNNs fail to count more-than-4-cycles at node level, implying that node representations cannot correctly encode the surrounding substructures like ring systems with more than four atoms. To overcome this limitation, we propose I$^2$-GNNs to extend Subgraph MPNNs by assigning different identifiers for the root node and its neighbors in each subgraph. I$^2$-GNNs' discriminative power is shown to be strictly stronger than Subgraph MPNNs and partially stronger than the 3-WL test. More importantly, I$^2$-GNNs are proven capable of counting all 3, 4, 5 and 6-cycles, covering common substructures like benzene rings in organic chemistry, while still keeping linear complexity. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first linear-time GNN model that can count 6-cycles with theoretical guarantees. We validate its counting power in cycle counting tasks and demonstrate its competitive performance in molecular prediction benchmarks.

Proposed method: I^2-GNNs

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets

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
14
I^2-GNNs
0.0230 ±0.0010
This paper
34
Nested GIN*
0.0290 ±0.0010
This paper
43
HIMP
0.0360 ±0.0020
This paper
50
CIN-Small
0.0440 ±0.0030
This paper
69
GIN*
0.0880 ±0.0020
This paper
79
GCN
0.1130 ±0.0020

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
8
CIN
0.8094 ±0.0057
This paper
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
18
GSN
actual #18 vs paper #18
0.8039 ±0.0090
actual #18 vs paper #18
paper 0.8039 ±0.0090
paper 0.8039 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0249
27
CIN-Small
0.8005 ±0.0104
This paper
28
SUN (EGO)
0.8003 ±0.0055
This paper
39
GNNAK+
0.7961 ±0.0119
This paper
70
HIMP
0.7880 ±0.0082
This paper
77
I^2-GNNs
0.7868 ±0.0093
This paper
85
Nested GIN*
0.7834 ±0.0186
This paper
109
GIN*
actual #109 vs paper #150 41 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #150 41 places worse
paper 0.7707 ±0.0149

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7707 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.0073
138
DeepLRP
0.7719 ±0.0140
This paper
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
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