We precisely characterize the expressivity of computable Recurrent Graph Neural Networks (recurrent GNNs). We prove that recurrent GNNs with finite-precision parameters, sum aggregation, and ReLU activation, can compute any graph algorithm that respects the natural message-passing invariance induced by the Color Refinement (or Weisfeiler-Leman) algorithm. While it is well known that the expressive power of GNNs is limited by this invariance [Morris et al., AAAI 2019; Xu et al., ICLR 2019], we establish that recurrent GNNs can actually match this limit. This is in contrast to non-recurrent GNNs, which have the power of Weisfeiler-Leman only in a very weak, "non-uniform", sense where each graph size requires a different GNN to compute with. Our construction introduces only a polynomial overhead in both time and space. Furthermore, we show that by incorporating random initialization, for connected graphs recurrent GNNs can express all graph algorithms. In particular, any polynomial-time graph algorithm can be emulated on connected graphs in polynomial time by a recurrent GNN with random initialization.

Graph Transformers (GTs) such as SAN and GPS are graph processing models that combine Message-Passing GNNs (MPGNNs) with global Self-Attention. They were shown to be universal function approximators, with two reservations: 1. The initial node features must be augmented with certain positional encodings. 2. The approximation is non-uniform: Graphs of different sizes may require a different approximating network. We first clarify that this form of universality is not unique to GTs: Using the same positional encodings, also pure MPGNNs and even 2-layer MLPs are non-uniform universal approximators. We then consider uniform expressivity: The target function is to be approximated by a single network for graphs of all sizes. There, we compare GTs to the more efficient MPGNN + Virtual Node architecture. The essential difference between the two model definitions is in their global computation method: Self-Attention Vs Virtual Node. We prove that none of the models is a uniform-universal approximator, before proving our main result: Neither model’s uniform expressivity subsumes the other’s. We demonstrate the theory with experiments on synthetic data. We further augment our study with real-world datasets, observing mixed results which indicate no clear ranking in practice as well.

Graph neural networks (GNN) are deep learning architectures for graphs. Essentially, a GNN is a distributed message passing algorithm, which is controlled by parameters learned from data. It operates on the vertices of a graph: in each iteration, vertices receive a message on each incoming edge, aggregate these messages, and then update their state based on their current state and the aggregated messages. The expressivity of GNNs can be characterised in terms of certain fragments of first-order logic with counting and the Weisfeiler-Lehman algorithm.

The expressivity of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) is dependent on the aggregation functions they employ. Theoretical works have pointed towards Sum aggregation GNNs subsuming every other GNNs, while certain practical works have observed a clear advantage to using Mean and Max. An examination of the theoretical guarantee identifies two caveats. First, it is size-restricted, that is, the power of every specific GNN is limited to graphs of a specific size. Successfully processing larger graphs may require an other GNN, and so on. Second, it concerns the power to distinguish non-isomorphic graphs, not the power to approximate general functions on graphs, and the former does not necessarily imply the latter. It is desired that a GNN's usability will not be limited to graphs of any specific size. Therefore, we explore the realm of unrestricted-size expressivity. We prove that basic functions, which can be computed exactly by Mean or Max GNNs, are inapproximable by any Sum GNN. We prove that under certain restrictions, every Mean or Max GNN can be approximated by a Sum GNN, but even there, a combination of (Sum, [Mean/Max]) is more expressive than Sum alone. Lastly, we prove further expressivity limitations for GNNs with a broad class of aggregations.