Graph Learning via Logic-Based Weisfeiler-Leman Variants and Tabularization

Reijo Jaakkola, Tomi Janhunen, Antti Kuusisto, Magdalena Ortiz, Matias Selin, Mantas Šimkus

Main figure for Graph Learning via Logic-Based Weisfeiler-Leman Variants and Tabularization

Abstract

We present a novel approach for graph classification based on tabularizing graph data via new variants of the Weisfeiler–Leman algorithm and then applying methods for tabular data. The variants are obtained by modifying the underlying logical framework, and we establish a precise theoretical characterization of their expressive power using a novel generalization of the bisimulation game for generalized quantifiers. We then test our method on 14 datasets that span a range of application domains. The experiments demonstrate that on datasets with up to 40 000 samples, our approach generally matches the predictive performance of graph neural networks and graph transformers, without requiring a GPU or extensive hyperparameter tuning. Even when our method's tuning time is included and the baselines' is not, our method is 5--20 times faster. When tuning time is included for all methods, the gap is significantly greater in favour of our method.

Proposed method: Q-WL-RF

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #481 442 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #481 442 places worse
paper 0.8410 ±0.0210
paper 0.8410 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0920
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #575 512 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #575 512 places worse
paper 0.8170 ±0.0210
paper 0.8170 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.1050
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #519 360 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #519 360 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8300 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0740
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
448
GraphGPS
actual #448 vs paper #519 71 places worse
0.8500 ±0.0316
best reported
actual #448 vs paper #519 71 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0140

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8300 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0200
488
Q-WL-RF
0.8400 ±0.0200
This paper
533
Exphormer
0.8280 ±0.0140
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #47 45 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #47 45 places worse
paper 0.8360 ±0.0240
paper 0.8360 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.1574
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #258 255 places worse
0.9727
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #258 255 places worse
paper 0.7910 ±0.0180
paper 0.7910 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.1817
12
WL
actual #12 vs paper #16 4 places worse
0.8590 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #16 4 places worse
paper 0.8550 ±0.0150
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8550 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0040
16
Q-WL-RF
0.8570 ±0.0150
This paper
35
GraphGPS
actual #35 vs paper #103 68 places worse
0.8421 ±0.0225
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #103 68 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0150

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8250 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0171
96
Exphormer
0.8270 ±0.0140
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
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)