AAAI 2023

Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Paths: Learning Topological Features via Path Complexes

Quang Truong, Peter Chin

Main figure for Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Paths: Learning Topological Features via Path Complexes

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), despite achieving remarkable performance across different tasks, are theoretically bounded by the 1-Weisfeiler-Lehman test, resulting in limitations in terms of graph expressivity. Even though prior works on topological higher-order GNNs overcome that boundary, these models often depend on assumptions about sub-structures of graphs. Specifically, topological GNNs leverage the prevalence of cliques, cycles, and rings to enhance the message-passing procedure. Our study presents a novel perspective by focusing on simple paths within graphs during the topological message-passing process, thus liberating the model from restrictive inductive biases. We prove that by lifting graphs to path complexes, our model can generalize the existing works on topology while inheriting several theoretical results on simplicial complexes and regular cell complexes. Without making prior assumptions about graph sub-structures, our method outperforms earlier works in other topological domains and achieves state-of-the-art results on various benchmarks.

Proposed method: PIN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0170
paper 0.8270 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.1664
3
GCN
0.9727
10
WL kernel
0.8600 ±0.0180
This paper
19
CIN
0.8530 ±0.0120
This paper
20
PIN
0.8510 ±0.0150
This paper
28
PK
actual #28 vs paper #103 75 places worse
0.8450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #103 75 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0050
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8250 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0200
29
CAN
0.8450 ±0.0160
This paper
50
GSN
0.8350 ±0.0200
This paper
59
pathGCN
0.8330 ±0.0130
This paper
64
PPGNs
0.8320 ±0.0110
This paper
82
SIN
actual #82 vs paper #91 9 places worse
0.8280 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #91 9 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0210

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8270 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0010
109
Natural GN
0.8240 ±0.0130
This paper
115
PathNN
0.8230 ±0.0190
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
373
DGCNN
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
0.7650 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7440 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0210
428
IGN
actual #428 vs paper #430 2 places worse
0.7433 ±0.0271
best reported
actual #428 vs paper #430 2 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0270

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7430 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0003
540
DCNN
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
0.6261
best reported
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
paper 0.5660 ±0.0100
541
GK (k=3)
0.6250 ±0.0030
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
12
CIN
0.8050 ±0.0390
This paper
14
pathGCN
0.8040 ±0.0420
This paper
33
PIN
0.7880 ±0.0440
This paper
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
44
CAN
0.7820 ±0.0200
This paper
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
225
PathNN
0.7520 ±0.0390
This paper

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 #101 83 places worse
0.8039 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #101 83 places worse
paper 0.7799 ±0.0100
paper 0.7799 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0240 Δ today 0.0240
44
PIN
0.7944 ±0.0140
This paper
54
PathNN
0.7917 ±0.0109
This paper
70
HIMP
0.7880 ±0.0082
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
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)