Homomorphism Counts for Graph Neural Networks: All About That Basis

Overview

• Researchers have identified limitations in the expressive power of graph neural networks (GNNs), particularly their inability to count certain graph patterns like cycles.
• Two main approaches have been proposed to address this issue: incorporating subgraph or homomorphism pattern counts into the graph features.
• This paper argues that both of these approaches are suboptimal and proposes a more fine-grained approach that incorporates the homomorphism counts of all structures in the "basis" of the target pattern.

Plain English Explanation

Graph neural networks (GNNs) are a type of machine learning model that can work with data represented as graphs, which are collections of nodes (or vertices) connected by edges. These models have been widely used for tasks like recommender systems, drug discovery, and question answering over knowledge graphs.

However, researchers have found that GNNs have certain limitations. One key limitation is that they struggle to count specific patterns in the graph, such as cycles. This is problematic because many real-world problems that GNNs are used for rely on the ability to detect and count these kinds of patterns.

To address this limitation, researchers have proposed two main approaches. The first is to enrich the graph features with counts of certain subgraph patterns, while the second is to incorporate counts of graph homomorphisms (a type of graph mapping).

This paper argues that both of these approaches are suboptimal and proposes a more fine-grained approach. The key idea is to incorporate the homomorphism counts of all the "building block" structures that make up the target pattern, rather than just the pattern itself. This allows the model to learn more expressive representations without increasing the computational complexity.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by reviewing the limitations of standard GNNs in terms of their inability to count certain graph patterns, such as cycles. The authors explain that this limitation stems from the fact that many of the functions GNNs are tasked with learning rely on the ability to detect and count these patterns.

The paper then discusses two prominent approaches that have been proposed to address this issue. The first is to enrich the graph features with counts of certain subgraph patterns, as explored in Towards Subgraph Isomorphism Counting for Graph Kernels. The second is to incorporate counts of graph homomorphisms, as in Generalization of Graph Neural Networks through the Lens of Homomorphism.

The key contribution of this paper is to argue that both of these approaches are suboptimal and to propose a more fine-grained approach. The authors show that by incorporating the homomorphism counts of all the "basis" structures that make up the target pattern, the model can learn more expressive representations without incurring additional computational complexity.

The paper then presents a series of theoretical results on node-level and graph-level motif parameters, which are used to validate the proposed approach empirically on standard benchmark datasets.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling case for the limitations of existing approaches to addressing the pattern counting problem in GNNs and presents a promising alternative. However, the authors acknowledge that their proposed approach is not a panacea and may have its own limitations.

For example, the paper does not address the challenge of identifying the relevant "basis" structures for a given target pattern, which could be a non-trivial task. Additionally, the theoretical analysis and empirical validation are focused on relatively simple graph patterns, and it remains to be seen how well the approach scales to more complex real-world scenarios.

Furthermore, the paper does not explore the potential tradeoffs between the increased expressive power of the proposed architectures and other desirable properties, such as interpretability or sample efficiency. It would be valuable for future research to investigate these aspects in more depth.

Overall, this paper represents an important step forward in addressing the limitations of GNNs, and the authors' proposed approach is a promising avenue for further exploration and refinement by the research community.

Conclusion

This paper tackles a key limitation of graph neural networks (GNNs) – their inability to effectively count certain graph patterns, such as cycles. The authors argue that existing approaches to address this issue, such as incorporating subgraph or homomorphism pattern counts, are suboptimal.

The paper's main contribution is a more fine-grained approach that incorporates the homomorphism counts of all the "basis" structures that make up the target pattern. This allows the model to learn more expressive representations without increasing computational complexity.

The theoretical and empirical results presented in the paper suggest that this approach is a promising direction for improving the capabilities of GNNs and expanding their applicability to a wider range of real-world problems that rely on the ability to detect and count specific graph patterns.