ICLR 2024

On the Completeness of Invariant Geometric Deep Learning Models

Zian Li, Xiyuan Wang, Shijia Kang, Muhan Zhang

Main figure for On the Completeness of Invariant Geometric Deep Learning Models

Abstract

Invariant models, one important class of geometric deep learning models, are capable of generating meaningful geometric representations by leveraging informative geometric features in point clouds. These models are characterized by their simplicity, good experimental results and computational efficiency. However, their theoretical expressive power still remains unclear, restricting a deeper understanding of the potential of such models. In this work, we concentrate on characterizing the theoretical expressiveness of a wide range of invariant models under fully-connected conditions. We first rigorously characterize the expressiveness of the most classic invariant model, message-passing neural networks incorporating distance (DisGNN), restricting its unidentifiable cases to be only highly symmetric point clouds. We then prove that GeoNGNN, the geometric counterpart of one of the simplest subgraph graph neural networks, can effectively break these corner cases' symmetry and thus achieve E(3)-completeness. By leveraging GeoNGNN as a theoretical tool, we further prove that: 1) most subgraph GNNs developed in traditional graph learning can be seamlessly extended to geometric scenarios with E(3)-completeness; 2) DimeNet, GemNet and SphereNet, three well-established invariant models, are also all capable of achieving E(3)-completeness. Our theoretical results fill the gap in the expressive power of invariant models, contributing to a rigorous and comprehensive understanding of their capabilities.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 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 #58 51 places worse
0.0009
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #58 51 places worse
paper 0.0530
8
GeoNGNN
0.0014
This paper
22
PaiNN
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
0.0100
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #96 74 places worse
paper 0.1591
44
2F-DisGNN
0.0465
This paper
47
GemNet
actual #47 vs paper #47
0.0502
actual #47 vs paper #47
paper 0.0502
48
MACE
actual #48 vs paper #48
0.0507
actual #48 vs paper #48
paper 0.0507
64
DimeNet++
actual #64 vs paper #90 26 places worse
0.0640
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #90 26 places worse
paper 0.1321
paper 0.1321 Δ at pub 0.0681 Δ today 0.0681
96
DisGNN
0.1565
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