Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2410.01308

How Hard Is It for Message-Passing GNNs to Simulate One Weisfeiler-Lehman Color-Refinement Step?

Guanyu Cui·Yuhe Guo·Zhewei Wei·Hsin-Hao Su
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Guanyu Cui, Yuhe Guo, Zhewei Wei, Hsin-Hao Su. 2024-10-02. How Hard Is It for Message-Passing GNNs to Simulate One Weisfeiler-Lehman Color-Refinement Step?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01308

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗