ICLR 2024

PF-GNN: Differentiable particle filtering based approximation of universal graph representations

Mohammed Haroon Dupty, Yanfei Dong, W. S. Lee

Main figure for PF-GNN: Differentiable particle filtering based approximation of universal graph representations

Abstract

Message passing Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are known to be limited in expressive power by the 1-WL color-refinement test for graph isomorphism. Other more expressive models either are computationally expensive or need preprocessing to extract structural features from the graph. In this work, we propose to make GNNs universal by guiding the learning process with exact isomorphism solver techniques which operate on the paradigm of Individualization and Refinement (IR), a method to artificially introduce asymmetry and further refine the coloring when 1-WL stops. Isomorphism solvers generate a search tree of colorings whose leaves uniquely identify the graph. However, the tree grows exponentially large and needs hand-crafted pruning techniques which are not desirable from a learning perspective. We take a probabilistic view and approximate the search tree of colorings (i.e. embeddings) by sampling multiple paths from root to leaves of the search tree. To learn more discriminative representations, we guide the sampling process with particle filter updates, a principled approach for sequential state estimation. Our algorithm is end-to-end differentiable, can be applied with any GNN as backbone and learns richer graph representations with only linear increase in runtime. Experimental evaluation shows that our approach consistently outperforms leading GNN models on both synthetic benchmarks for isomorphism detection as well as real-world datasets.

Proposed method: PF-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

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
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
20
Directional GSN
0.8039 ±0.0090
This paper
25
PF-GNN
0.8015 ±0.0068
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
20
PF-GNN
1.0000
This paper
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #72 64 places worse
1.0000
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #72 64 places worse
paper 0.1000
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.1000 Δ at pub 0.9000
1
PPGN
1.0000
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
3
AgentNet
1.0000
34
GAT
actual #34 vs paper #72 38 places worse
0.9993 ±0.0047
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #72 38 places worse
paper 0.1000
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.1000 Δ at pub 0.8993
35
GraphSAGE
0.9993 ±0.0047
40
GIN
actual #40 vs paper #72 32 places worse
0.9933 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #72 32 places worse
paper 0.1000
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.1000 Δ at pub 0.8933
47
3-WL GNN
0.9780 ±0.1090
This paper
55
Ring-GNN
actual #55 vs paper #72 17 places worse
0.8000 ±0.1570
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #72 17 places worse
paper 0.1000
58
RP-GIN
actual #58 vs paper #61 3 places worse
0.5330 ±0.1290
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #61 3 places worse
paper 0.3760 ±0.1290

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3760 ±0.1290 Δ at pub 0.1570
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)