Can strong structural encoding reduce the importance of Message Passing?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The most prevalent class of neural networks operating on graphs are message passing neural networks (MPNNs), in which the representation of a node is updated iteratively by aggregating information in the 1-hop neighborhood. Since this paradigm for computing node embeddings may prevent the model from learning coarse topological structures, the initial features are often augmented with structural information of the graph, typically in the form of Laplacian eigenvectors or Random Walk transition probabilities. In this work, we explore the contribution of message passing when strong structural encodings are provided. We introduce a novel way of modeling the interaction between feature and structural information based on their tensor product rather than the standard concatenation. The choice of interaction is compared in common scenarios and in settings where the capacity of the message-passing layer is severely reduced and ultimately the message-passing phase is removed altogether. Our results indicate that using tensor-based encodings is always at least on par with the concatenation-based encoding and that it makes the model much more robust when the message passing layers are removed, on some tasks incurring almost no drop in performance. This suggests that the importance of message passing is limited when the model can construct strong structural encodings.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Oct 2023.
Builds on
20 of 31 references.
References · 20
- 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,361
- 2017Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphscited by 6,320
- 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,393
- 2017Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistrycited by 3,487
- 2016Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Fast Localized Spectral Filteringcited by 2,089
- 2013Spectral Networks and Locally Connected Networks on Graphscited by 1,102
- 2022Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable Graph Transformercited by 713
- 2020Benchmarking Graph Neural Networkscited by 680
- 2021Rethinking Graph Transformers with Spectral Attentioncited by 473
- 2018Invariant and Equivariant Graph Networkscited by 346
- 2021Graph Neural Networks with Learnable Structural and Positional Representationscited by 333
- 2021Do Transformers Really Perform Bad for Graph Representation?cited by 320
8 more
- 2020Improving Graph Neural Network Expressivity via Subgraph Isomorphism Countingcited by 313
- 2020Can Graph Neural Networks Count Substructures?cited by 236
- 2021Weisfeiler and Lehman Go Topological: Message Passing Simplicial Networkscited by 221
- 2019Universal Invariant and Equivariant Graph Neural Networkscited by 183
- 2023On Over-Squashing in Message Passing Neural Networks: The Impact of Width, Depth, and Topologycited by 166
- 2023Understanding Oversquashing in GNNs through the Lens of Effective Resistancecited by 97
- 2023DRew: Dynamically Rewired Message Passing with Delaycited by 82
- 2022Expressiveness and Approximation Properties of Graph Neural Networkscited by 64
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
2 papers.