NeurIPS 2023

Is Distance Matrix Enough for Geometric Deep Learning?

Zian Li, Xiyuan Wang, Yinan Huang, Muhan Zhang

Main figure for Is Distance Matrix Enough for Geometric Deep Learning?

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are often used for tasks involving the 3D geometry of a given graph, such as molecular dynamics simulation. While incorporating Euclidean distance into Message Passing Neural Networks (referred to as Vanilla DisGNN) is a straightforward way to learn the geometry, it has been demonstrated that Vanilla DisGNN is geometrically incomplete. In this work, we first construct families of novel and symmetric geometric graphs that Vanilla DisGNN cannot distinguish even when considering all-pair distances, which greatly expands the existing counterexample families. Our counterexamples show the inherent limitation of Vanilla DisGNN to capture symmetric geometric structures. We then propose $k$-DisGNNs, which can effectively exploit the rich geometry contained in the distance matrix. We demonstrate the high expressive power of $k$-DisGNNs from three perspectives: 1. They can learn high-order geometric information that cannot be captured by Vanilla DisGNN. 2. They can unify some existing well-designed geometric models. 3. They are universal function approximators from geometric graphs to scalars (when $k 2$) and vectors (when $k 3$). Most importantly, we establish a connection between geometric deep learning (GDL) and traditional graph representation learning (GRL), showing that those highly expressive GNN models originally designed for GRL can also be applied to GDL with impressive performance, and that existing complicated, equivariant models are not the only solution. Experiments verify our theory. Our $k$-DisGNNs achieve many new state-of-the-art results on MD17.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 4 baseline values reported too low

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

Quantum Chemistry

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
QHNet
0.0000
2
QHNetV2
0.0000
3
PhiSNet
0.0000
7
NequIP
actual #7 vs paper #98 91 places worse
0.0009
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #98 91 places worse
paper 0.1870
22
PaiNN
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
0.0100
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
paper 0.1670
47
GemNet
actual #47 vs paper #92 45 places worse
0.0502
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #92 45 places worse
paper 0.1453
64
DimeNet++
actual #64 vs paper #98 34 places worse
0.0640
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #98 34 places worse
paper 0.2040
paper 0.2040 Δ at pub 0.1400 Δ today 0.1400
87
TorchMD
0.1240
This paper
90
2F-Dis.
0.1305
This paper
91
GNN-LF
0.1342
This paper
94
3E-Dis.
0.1466
This paper
97
FCHL
0.1820
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)