NeurIPS 2024

A Flexible, Equivariant Framework for Subgraph GNNs via Graph Products and Graph Coarsening

Guy Bar-Shalom, Yam Eitan, Fabrizio Frasca, Haggai Maron

Main figure for A Flexible, Equivariant Framework for Subgraph GNNs via Graph Products and Graph Coarsening

Abstract

Subgraph GNNs enhance message-passing GNNs expressivity by representing graphs as sets of subgraphs, demonstrating impressive performance across various tasks. However, their scalability is hindered by the need to process large numbers of subgraphs. While previous approaches attempted to generate smaller subsets of subgraphs through random or learnable sampling, these methods often yielded suboptimal selections or were limited to small subset sizes, ultimately compromising their effectiveness. This paper introduces a new Subgraph GNN framework to address these issues. Our approach diverges from most previous methods by associating subgraphs with node clusters rather than with individual nodes. We show that the resulting collection of subgraphs can be viewed as the product of coarsened and original graphs, unveiling a new connectivity structure on which we perform generalized message passing. Crucially, controlling the coarsening function enables meaningful selection of any number of subgraphs. In addition, we reveal novel permutation symmetries in the resulting node feature tensor, characterize associated linear equivariant layers, and integrate them into our Subgraph GNN. We also introduce novel node marking strategies and provide a theoretical analysis of their expressive power and other key aspects of our approach. Extensive experiments on multiple graph learning benchmarks demonstrate that our method is significantly more flexible than previous approaches, as it can seamlessly handle any number of subgraphs, while consistently outperforming baseline approaches. Our code is available at.

Proposed method: CS-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
TIGT
0.0140 ±0.0010
2
FloydNet
0.0160
3
GSSC
0.0190 ±0.0010
6
Subgraphormer
actual #6 vs paper #6
0.0200 ±0.0020
actual #6 vs paper #6
paper 0.0200 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.0200 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0030
8
CS-GNN
0.0210 ±0.0010
This paper
9
GNN-SSWL+
0.0220 ±0.0010
This paper
37
MAG-GNN
actual #37 vs paper #37
0.0300 ±0.0020
actual #37 vs paper #37
paper 0.0300 ±0.0020
paper 0.0300 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0760
69
GIN
0.0880 ±0.0020

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
0.2421 ±0.0016
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
121
CS-GNN
0.2539 ±0.0015
This paper
140
Random
0.2594 ±0.0021
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
0.7261 ±0.0011
133
CS-GNN
0.6156 ±0.0080
This paper
144
Random
0.5924 ±0.0050
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published