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.
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
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WL-MLP | 0.9954 | |
| 2 | GIN | 0.9934 best reported | best at pub: 1-WL Expressiveness Is (Almost) All You Need (2022) |
| 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 | 0.8450
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014) |
| 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 | 0.8280
±0.0220 best reported | best at pub: Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Topological: Message Passing Simplicial Networks (ICML 2021) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 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 | 0.7650
±0.0190 best reported | best at pub: GraphCrop: Subgraph Cropping for Graph Classification (2020) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 428 | IGN | 0.7433
±0.0271 best reported | best at pub: Towards Better Graph Representation Learning with Parameterized Decomposition & Filtering (ICML 2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 540 | DCNN | 0.6261 best reported | |
| 541 | GK (k=3) | 0.6250
±0.0030 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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
| # | Model | ROC-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 | 0.8039
±0.0090 best reported | best at pub: Boosting the Cycle Counting Power of Graph Neural Networks with I$^2$-GNNs (ICLR 2022) best today: GRANOLA: Adaptive Normalization for Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 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 |
