REVIEW 1 cited by
How does over-squashing affect the power of GNNs?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are the state-of-the-art model for machine learning on graph-structured data. The most popular class of GNNs operate by exchanging information between adjacent nodes, and are known as Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs). Given their widespread use, understanding the expressive power of MPNNs is a key question. However, existing results typically consider settings with uninformative node features. In this paper, we provide a rigorous analysis to determine which function classes of node features can be learned by an MPNN of a given capacity. We do so by measuring the level of pairwise interactions between nodes that MPNNs allow for. This measure provides a novel quantitative characterization of the so-called over-squashing effect, which is observed to occur when a large volume of messages is aggregated into fixed-size vectors. Using our measure, we prove that, to guarantee sufficient communication between pairs of nodes, the capacity of the MPNN must be large enough, depending on properties of the input graph structure, such as commute times. For many relevant scenarios, our analysis results in impossibility statements in practice, showing that over-squashing hinders the expressive power of MPNNs. We validate our theoretical findings through extensive controlled experiments and ablation studies.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Asynchronous Message Passing for Addressing Oversquashing in Graph Neural Networks
CAMP updates nodes in centrality-ranked batches to spread information across GNN layers and claims to reduce oversquashing without rewiring, but the proof and evidence are not convincing.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.