A Tight Expressivity Hierarchy for GNN-Based Entity Resolution in Master Data Management
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
- 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,355
- 2017Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 1,684
- 2018Weisfeiler and Leman Go Neural: Higher-order Graph Neural Networkscited by 878
- 2021Identity-aware Graph Neural Networkscited by 197
- 2019What graph neural networks cannot learn: depth vs widthcited by 195
- 2021Equivariant Subgraph Aggregation Networkscited by 154
- 2019Approximation Ratios of Graph Neural Networks for Combinatorial Problemscited by 68
- 2023Provably Powerful Graph Neural Networks for Directed Multigraphscited by 24
- 2019edGNN: a Simple and Powerful GNN for Directed Labeled Graphscited by 17
- 2019AutoBlock: A Hands-off Blocking Framework for Entity Matchingcited by 12
- 2020Link Prediction using Graph Neural Networks for Master Data Managementcited by 8
- 2024View-based Explanations for Graph Neural Networkscited by 8
Built on by
Not cited yet.