NeurIPS 2023

The expressive power of pooling in Graph Neural Networks

F. Bianchi, Veronica Lachi

Main figure for The expressive power of pooling in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

In Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), hierarchical pooling operators generate local summaries of the data by coarsening the graph structure and the vertex features. While considerable attention has been devoted to analyzing the expressive power of message-passing (MP) layers in GNNs, a study on how graph pooling affects the expressiveness of a GNN is still lacking. Additionally, despite the recent advances in the design of pooling operators, there is not a principled criterion to compare them. In this work, we derive sufficient conditions for a pooling operator to fully preserve the expressive power of the MP layers before it. These conditions serve as a universal and theoretically grounded criterion for choosing among existing pooling operators or designing new ones. Based on our theoretical findings, we analyze several existing pooling operators and identify those that fail to satisfy the expressiveness conditions. Finally, we introduce an experimental setup to verify empirically the expressive power of a GNN equipped with pooling layers, in terms of its capability to perform a graph isomorphism test.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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
0.9330 ±0.0290
281
Rand-dense
0.8890 ±0.0430
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
516
Cmp-Graclus
0.8320 ±0.0910
This paper
762
Rand-sparse
0.6890 ±0.1730
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
5
DiffPool
actual #5 vs paper #326 321 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0390
actual #5 vs paper #326 321 places worse
paper 0.7780 ±0.0390

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7780 ±0.0390 Δ at pub 0.0007 Δ today 0.1430
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
170
Graclus
actual #170 vs paper #170
0.8120 ±0.0340
actual #170 vs paper #170
paper 0.8120 ±0.0340

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8120 ±0.0340 Δ at pub 0.0110
221
MinCut
actual #221 vs paper #221
0.8010 ±0.0260
actual #221 vs paper #221
paper 0.8010 ±0.0260
paper 0.8010 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0570
231
ecpool
0.7980 ±0.0330
This paper
259
SAGPool
actual #259 vs paper #259
0.7910 ±0.0300
actual #259 vs paper #259
paper 0.7910 ±0.0300

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7910 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0122
294
DMoN
actual #294 vs paper #294
0.7850 ±0.0140
actual #294 vs paper #294
paper 0.7850 ±0.0140
paper 0.7850 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0420
310
Rand-dense
0.7820 ±0.0200
This paper
327
Cmp-Graclus
0.7780 ±0.0180
This paper
332
k-MIS
0.7760 ±0.0300
This paper
449
ASAPool
0.7310 ±0.0250
This paper
457
Top-k
actual #457 vs paper #457
0.7260 ±0.0310
actual #457 vs paper #457
paper 0.7260 ±0.0310

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7260 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0060
465
PanPool
actual #465 vs paper #517 52 places worse
0.7168 ±0.0445
best reported
actual #465 vs paper #517 52 places worse
paper 0.6610 ±0.0230

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6610 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0558
495
Rand-sparse
0.6910 ±0.0330
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
33
DiffPool
actual #33 vs paper #216 183 places worse
0.8213 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #216 183 places worse
paper 0.7660 ±0.0250
paper 0.7660 ±0.0250 Δ at pub 0.0267 Δ today 0.0553
39
SAGPool
actual #39 vs paper #174 135 places worse
0.8176 ±0.0157
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #174 135 places worse
paper 0.7810 ±0.0180
paper 0.7810 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0366
84
DMoN
actual #84 vs paper #84
0.8090 ±0.0070
actual #84 vs paper #84
paper 0.8090 ±0.0070
paper 0.8090 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0140
85
ecpool
0.8090 ±0.0140
This paper
107
Graclus
actual #107 vs paper #107
0.8040 ±0.0150
actual #107 vs paper #107
paper 0.8040 ±0.0150

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8040 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0080
111
PanPool
actual #111 vs paper #174 63 places worse
0.8022 ±0.0202
best reported
actual #111 vs paper #174 63 places worse
paper 0.7820 ±0.0150

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7820 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0202
149
MinCut
0.7920 ±0.0150
This paper
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
171
ASAPool
0.7840 ±0.0160
This paper
180
Top-k
actual #180 vs paper #180
0.7790 ±0.0210
actual #180 vs paper #180
paper 0.7790 ±0.0210

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7790 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0450
270
k-MIS
0.7370 ±0.0140
This paper
307
Rand-dense
0.6930 ±0.0160
This paper
308
Rand-sparse
0.6880 ±0.0160
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
64
k-MIS
0.6350 ±0.0710
This paper
70
DiffPool
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
0.6253
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
paper 0.6230 ±0.0730

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6230 ±0.0730 Δ at pub 0.0023
72
MinCut
0.6230 ±0.0380
This paper
82
DMoN
0.6100 ±0.0500
This paper
83
Graclus
actual #83 vs paper #83
0.6100 ±0.0660
actual #83 vs paper #83
paper 0.6100 ±0.0660
101
ecpool
0.5960 ±0.0370
This paper
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
171
Top-k
actual #171 vs paper #171
0.4550 ±0.1050
actual #171 vs paper #171
paper 0.4550 ±0.1050

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4550 ±0.1050 Δ at pub 0.1410
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSNN
0.7790 ±0.0360
2
SIN
0.7560 ±0.0320
3
CIN
0.7560 ±0.0370
5
GIN
0.7510 ±0.0510
43
DiffPool
actual #43 vs paper #104 61 places worse
0.5131 ±0.0072
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #104 61 places worse
paper 0.4520 ±0.0340
paper 0.4520 ±0.0340 Δ at pub 0.0611 Δ today 0.0611
73
SAGPool
actual #73 vs paper #109 36 places worse
0.4933 ±0.0490
best reported
actual #73 vs paper #109 36 places worse
paper 0.4400 ±0.0340

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4400 ±0.0340 Δ at pub 0.0533
76
ecpool
0.4920 ±0.0290
This paper
88
PanPool
0.4830 ±0.0370
This paper
94
DMoN
0.4700 ±0.0550
This paper
96
k-MIS
0.4680 ±0.0460
This paper
97
MinCut
0.4660 ±0.0400
This paper
101
Graclus
0.4620 ±0.0440
This paper
102
ASAPool
0.4610 ±0.0420
This paper
103
Rand-sparse
0.4580 ±0.0370
This paper
105
Rand-dense
0.4520 ±0.0560
This paper
108
Top-k
0.4480 ±0.0290
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere