ICML 2023

On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer

Chen Cai, T. Hy, Rose Yu, Yusu Wang

Main figure for On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer

Abstract

Graph Transformer (GT) recently has emerged as a new paradigm of graph learning algorithms, outperforming the previously popular Message Passing Neural Network (MPNN) on multiple benchmarks. Previous work (Kim et al., 2022) shows that with proper position embedding, GT can approximate MPNN arbitrarily well, implying that GT is at least as powerful as MPNN. In this paper, we study the inverse connection and show that MPNN with virtual node (VN), a commonly used heuristic with little theoretical understanding, is powerful enough to arbitrarily approximate the self-attention layer of GT. In particular, we first show that if we consider one type of linear transformer, the so-called Performer/Linear Transformer (Choromanski et al., 2020; Katharopoulos et al., 2020), then MPNN + VN with only O(1) depth and O(1) width can approximate a self-attention layer in Performer/Linear Transformer. Next, via a connection between MPNN + VN and DeepSets, we prove the MPNN + VN with O(n^d) width and O(1) depth can approximate the self-attention layer arbitrarily well, where d is the input feature dimension. Lastly, under some assumptions, we provide an explicit construction of MPNN + VN with O(1) width and O(n) depth approximating the self-attention layer in GT arbitrarily well. On the empirical side, we demonstrate that 1) MPNN + VN is a surprisingly strong baseline, outperforming GT on the recently proposed Long Range Graph Benchmark (LRGB) dataset, 2) our MPNN + VN improves over early implementation on a wide range of OGB datasets and 3) MPNN + VN outperforms Linear Transformer and MPNN on the climate modeling task.

Proposed method: MPNN + VN + NoPE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

OGB

ogbg-molhiv

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is ROC-AUC. The paper reports 3 values on ROC-AUC and 1 value on AUROC .

#ModelROC-AUC ↑ defaultAUROC ↑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
—
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ± 0.0160
—
69
GPS
0.7880 ± 0.0101
—
AUROC —
This paper
106
SAN
0.7785 ± 0.2470
—
AUROC —
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ± 0.0182
—
168
MPNN + VN + NoPE
—
0.7676 ± 0.0172
AUROC 0.7676 ± 0.0172
This paper
204
GCN+virtual node
0.7599 ± 0.0119
—
AUROC —
This paper
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Large
0.3150 ±0.0010
2
Graphormer
0.3140
3
Graphormer-FLAG
0.3139 ±0.0032
30
GPS
0.2907 ±0.0028
This paper
31
GIN
actual #31 vs paper #90 59 places worse
0.2902 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #90 59 places worse
paper 0.2266 ±0.0028
paper 0.2266 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0636
41
MPNN + VN + NoPE
0.2823 ±0.0026
This paper
49
SAN
0.2765 ±0.0042
This paper
51
GraphTrans (GCN-Virtual)
0.2761 ±0.0029
This paper
53
GIN+virtual node
0.2703 ±0.0023
This paper
56
GCN
actual #56 vs paper #98 42 places worse
0.2690 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #98 42 places worse
paper 0.2020 ±0.0024
81
GCN+virtual node
0.2424 ±0.0034
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
A-NLSF
0.8149 ±0.0067
2
differential encoding
0.8096 ±0.0029
3
MPNN + VN + NoPE
0.8055 ±0.0038
This paper
5
GPS
0.8015 ±0.0033
This paper
16
GatedGCN
0.7531 ±0.0083
19
K-Subtree SAT
0.7522 ±0.0056
This paper
33
GIN
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
0.7037 ±0.0107
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
paper 0.6892 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6892 ±0.0100 Δ today 0.0145
35
GIN+virtual node
0.7037 ±0.0107
This paper
38
GCN
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
0.6857 ±0.0061
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
paper 0.6839 ±0.0084

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6839 ±0.0084 Δ today 0.0018
39
GCN+virtual node
0.6857 ±0.0061
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.2060 ±0.0020
2
DirGraphSSM
0.2050 ±0.0023
3
Graph-Mamba
0.2030 ±0.0023
10
K-Subtree SAT
0.1937 ±0.0028
This paper
17
GPS
0.1894 ±0.0024
This paper
20
GraphTrans (GCN-Virtual)
0.1830 ±0.0024
This paper
25
MPNN + VN + NoPE
0.1727 ±0.0017
This paper
35
GCN
actual #35 vs paper #35
0.1510 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #35
paper 0.1507 ±0.0018

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.1507 ±0.0018 Δ today 0.0003
37
GIN
0.1495 ±0.0023
This paper

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #74 73 places worse
0.2488 ±0.0021
actual #1 vs paper #74 73 places worse
paper 0.2488 ±0.0021
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.2488 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.1008 Δ today 0.0067
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
7
GatedGCN
actual #7 vs paper #109 102 places worse
0.2523 ±0.0016
actual #7 vs paper #109 102 places worse
paper 0.2523 ±0.0016
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.2523 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0897 Δ today 0.0092
49
GINE
actual #49 vs paper #136 87 places worse
0.2584 ±0.0011
actual #49 vs paper #136 87 places worse
paper 0.2584 ±0.0011
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.2584 ±0.0011 Δ at pub 0.0963 Δ today 0.0111
69
GatedGCN+RWSE
actual #69 vs paper #111 42 places worse
0.2529 ±0.0009
actual #69 vs paper #111 42 places worse
paper 0.2529 ±0.0009
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.2529 ±0.0009 Δ at pub 0.0828 Δ today 0.0044
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #77 73 places worse
0.6623 ±0.0038
actual #4 vs paper #77 73 places worse
paper 0.6623 ±0.0038
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.6623 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0693 Δ today 0.0638
26
GIN
0.7059 ±0.0089
34
GatedGCN
actual #34 vs paper #74 40 places worse
0.6635 ±0.0024
actual #34 vs paper #74 40 places worse
paper 0.6635 ±0.0024
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.6635 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0771 Δ today 0.0371
73
GatedGCN+RWSE
actual #73 vs paper #73
0.6685 ±0.0062
actual #73 vs paper #73
paper 0.6685 ±0.0062
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.6685 ±0.0062 Δ at pub 0.0616
78
GINE
actual #78 vs paper #117 39 places worse
0.6346 ±0.0071
actual #78 vs paper #117 39 places worse
paper 0.6346 ±0.0071
prev best: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)
paper 0.6346 ±0.0071 Δ at pub 0.0848 Δ today 0.0275
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021

PascalVOC-SP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1-macro; the dataset default is F1. Values below use F1-macro only.

Sorted by F1-macro. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1-macro ↑Paper
1
SAN+LapPE
0.3230 ±0.0039
2
SAN+RWSE
0.3216 ±0.0027
3
GatedGCN
0.2873 ±0.0219
This paper
4
GatedGCN+LapPE
0.2860 ±0.0085
This paper
10
GCN
0.1268 ±0.0060
This paper
11
GINE
0.1265 ±0.0076
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result