mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Flood and Echo Net: Algorithmically Aligned GNNs that Generalize

arXiv 2310.06970 ↗First posted 10 Oct 2023cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Most Graph Neural Networks follow the standard message-passing framework where, in each step, all nodes simultaneously communicate with each other. We want to challenge this paradigm by aligning the computation more closely to the execution of distributed algorithms and propose the Flood and Echo Net. A single round of a Flood and Echo Net consists of an origin node and a flooding phase followed by an echo phase. First, during the flooding, messages are sent from the origin and propagated outwards throughout the entire graph. Then, during the echo, the message flow reverses and messages are sent back towards the origin. As nodes are only sparsely activated upon receiving a message, this leads to a wave-like activation pattern that traverses the graph. Through these sparse but parallel activations, the Net becomes more expressive than traditional MPNNs which are limited by the 1-WL test and also is provably more efficient in terms of message complexity. Moreover, the mechanism's inherent ability to generalize across graphs of varying sizes positions it as a practical architecture for the task of algorithmic learning. We test the Flood and Echo Net on a variety of synthetic tasks and the SALSA-CLRS benchmark and find that the algorithmic alignment of the execution improves generalization to larger graph sizes.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2023.

Builds on

25 of 38 references.

References · 25

  1. 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,282
  2. 2017Graph Attention Networkscited by 8,854
  3. 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,579
  4. 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,355
  5. 2014On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder-Decoder Approachescited by 1,303
  6. 2022Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable Graph Transformercited by 702
  7. 2020On the Bottleneck of Graph Neural Networks and its Practical Implicationscited by 624
  8. 2020How Neural Networks Extrapolate: From Feedforward to Graph Neural Networkscited by 218
  9. 2020Generalization and Representational Limits of Graph Neural Networkscited by 217
  10. 2019What graph neural networks cannot learn: depth vs widthcited by 195
  11. 2020Random Features Strengthen Graph Neural Networkscited by 184
  12. 2019On the equivalence between graph isomorphism testing and function approximation with GNNscited by 172
13 more
  1. 2019What Can Neural Networks Reason About?cited by 155
  2. 2020From Local Structures to Size Generalization in Graph Neural Networkscited by 119
  3. 2023Rethinking the Expressive Power of GNNs via Graph Biconnectivitycited by 119
  4. 2021DropGNN: Random Dropouts Increase the Expressiveness of Graph Neural Networkscited by 117
  5. 2021Can You Learn an Algorithm? Generalizing from Easy to Hard Problems with Recurrent Networkscited by 108
  6. 2022The CLRS Algorithmic Reasoning Benchmarkcited by 103
  7. 2019Approximation Ratios of Graph Neural Networks for Combinatorial Problemscited by 68
  8. 2023A Complete Expressiveness Hierarchy for Subgraph GNNs via Subgraph Weisfeiler-Lehman Testscited by 64
  9. 2021Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classificationcited by 63
  10. 2020Pointer Graph Networkscited by 52
  11. 2022A Theoretical Comparison of Graph Neural Network Extensionscited by 47
  12. 2023Traffic4cast at NeurIPS 2022 -- Predict Dynamics along Graph Edges from Sparse Node Data: Whole City Traffic and ETA from Stationary Vehicle Detectorscited by 3
  13. 2017Deterministic subgraph detection in broadcast CONGESTcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.