How Hard Is It for Message-Passing GNNs to Simulate One Weisfeiler-Lehman Color-Refinement Step?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Message-passing graph neural networks (MPGNNs) are commonly compared with the Weisfeiler-Lehman (WL) color-refinement procedure, but this comparison does not quantify the resource parameters a network needs to realize color refinement with bounded-size messages and finite numerical precision. We study the cost of simulating a single color-refinement step on unattributed graphs. We distinguish input-independent, or oblivious, simulation from instance-dependent simulation. In the former, the parameters, or their distributions in randomized models, are fixed before the input instance is known. Our results show that the local form of WL color refinement hides a global relabeling problem. In the oblivious setting, deterministic and zero-error randomized MPGNNs cannot solve this problem in the worst case using only shallow networks with small messages. We complement this lower bound with a nearly matching construction in a stronger rooted, port-aware model. By contrast, when the color set is large, bounded-error randomness can greatly reduce the cost, and a one-layer MPGNN with messages of logarithmic size and a logarithmic number of random bits suffices. We show that this logarithmic number of random bits is essentially necessary for shallow, small-message simulations. When the color set is small, we still obtain a rooted, port-aware simulation, but this construction requires more layers or larger messages. We also prove that this extra cost is partly unavoidable, as small color sets force a nontrivial trade-off between the number of layers and the message size. Finally, instance-dependent simulation can be much shallower, but the required instance-specific parameters are not necessarily easy to find. Together, these results reveal quantitative structure hidden behind the statement that MPGNNs match WL color refinement.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2024.
Builds on
18 of 48 references.
References · 18
- 2017Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphscited by 6,284
- 2017Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistrycited by 3,460
- 2020LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendationcited by 1,134
- 2018Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Web-Scale Recommender Systemscited by 1,133
- 2019Neural Graph Collaborative Filteringcited by 660
- 2019Provably Powerful Graph Networkscited by 385
- 2019What graph neural networks cannot learn: depth vs widthcited by 195
- 2023Rethinking the Expressive Power of GNNs via Graph Biconnectivitycited by 119
- 2021DropGNN: Random Dropouts Increase the Expressiveness of Graph Neural Networkscited by 117
- 2022Understanding and Extending Subgraph GNNs by Rethinking Their Symmetriescited by 112
- 2022How Powerful are K-hop Message Passing Graph Neural Networkscited by 90
- 2020Subgraph Neural Networkscited by 73
6 more
- 2021Reconstruction for Powerful Graph Representationscited by 65
- 2022Expressiveness and Approximation Properties of Graph Neural Networkscited by 63
- 2023From Relational Pooling to Subgraph GNNs: A Universal Framework for More Expressive Graph Neural Networkscited by 17
- 2023Extending the Design Space of Graph Neural Networks by Rethinking Folklore Weisfeiler-Lehmancited by 13
- 2020The Iteration Number of Colour Refinementcited by 12
- 2023Distance-Restricted Folklore Weisfeiler-Leman GNNs with Provable Cycle Counting Powercited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.