mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Tight Expressivity Hierarchy for GNN-Based Entity Resolution in Master Data Management

arXiv 2603.27154 ↗First posted 28 Mar 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.DScited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Entity resolution -- identifying database records that refer to the same real-world entity -- is naturally modelled on bipartite graphs connecting entity nodes to their attribute values. Applying a message-passing neural network (MPNN) with all available extensions (reverse message passing, port numbering, ego IDs) incurs unnecessary overhead, since different entity resolution tasks have fundamentally different complexity. For a given matching criterion, what is the cheapest MPNN architecture that provably works? We answer this with a four-theorem separation theory on typed entity-attribute graphs. We introduce co-reference predicates Dupr (two same-type entities share at least r attribute values) and the ℓ-cycle predicate Cycℓ for settings with entity-entity edges. For each predicate we prove tight bounds -- constructing graph pairs provably indistinguishable by every MPNN lacking the required adaptation, and exhibiting explicit minimal-depth MPNNs that compute the predicate on all inputs. The central finding is a sharp complexity gap between detecting any shared attribute and detecting multiple shared attributes. The former is purely local, requiring only reverse message passing in two layers. The latter demands cross-attribute identity correlation -- verifying that the same entity appears at several attributes of the target -- a fundamentally non-local requirement needing ego IDs and four layers, even on acyclic bipartite graphs. A similar necessity holds for cycle detection. Together, these results yield a minimal-architecture principle: practitioners can select the cheapest sufficient adaptation set, with a guarantee that no simpler architecture works. Computational validation confirms every prediction.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2026.

Builds on

15 of 33 references.

References · 15

  1. 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,355
  2. 2017Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 1,684
  3. 2018Weisfeiler and Leman Go Neural: Higher-order Graph Neural Networkscited by 878
  4. 2021Identity-aware Graph Neural Networkscited by 197
  5. 2019What graph neural networks cannot learn: depth vs widthcited by 195
  6. 2021Equivariant Subgraph Aggregation Networkscited by 154
  7. 2019Approximation Ratios of Graph Neural Networks for Combinatorial Problemscited by 68
  8. 2023Provably Powerful Graph Neural Networks for Directed Multigraphscited by 24
  9. 2019edGNN: a Simple and Powerful GNN for Directed Labeled Graphscited by 17
  10. 2019AutoBlock: A Hands-off Blocking Framework for Entity Matchingcited by 12
  11. 2020Link Prediction using Graph Neural Networks for Master Data Managementcited by 8
  12. 2024View-based Explanations for Graph Neural Networkscited by 8
3 more
  1. 2025Graph Data Management and Graph Machine Learning: Synergies and Opportunitiescited by 2
  2. 2025TeMP-TraG: Edge-based Temporal Message Passing in Transaction Graphscited by 2
  3. 2025SliceGX: Layer-wise GNN Explanation with Model-slicingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.