Are Targeted Messages More Effective?
Martin Grohe, Eran Rosenbluth
Abstract
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 core GNN architecture comes in two different versions. In the first version, a message only depends on the state of the source vertex, whereas in the second version it depends on the states of the source and target vertices. In practice, both of these versions are used, but the theory of GNNs so far mostly focused on the first one. On the logical side, the two versions correspond to two fragments of first-order logic with counting that we call modal and guarded.
The question whether the two versions differ in their expressivity has been mostly overlooked in the GNN literature and has only been asked recently (Grohe, LICS'23). We answer this question here. It turns out that the answer is not as straightforward as one might expect. By proving that the modal and guarded fragment of first-order logic with counting have the same expressivity over labelled undirected graphs, we show that in a non-uniform setting the two GNN versions have the same expressivity. However, we also prove that in a uniform setting the second version is strictly more expressive.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 83e3067f-8130-41c3-b70e-32b527255b82Cited by top-tier papers4
- Distinguished In Uniform: Self-Attention Vs. Virtual NodesEran Rosenbluth, Jan Tönshoff, Martin Ritzert, Berke Kisin et al.ICLR 2024 · 20 citations
- The Descriptive Complexity of Graph Neural NetworksMartin GroheLICS 2023 · 7 citations
- Logical Characterizations of GNNs with Mean AggregationMoritz Schönherr, Carsten LutzAAAI 2026 · 7 citations
- Repetition Makes Perfect: Recurrent Graph Neural Networks Match Message Passing LimitEran Rosenbluth, Martin GroheAAAI 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on3
- Do We Need Anisotropic Graph Neural Networks?Shyam A. Tailor, Felix L. Opolka, Pietro Liò, Nicholas Donald LaneICLR 2022 · 46 citations
- The Logical Expressiveness of Graph Neural NetworksPablo Barceló, Egor V. Kostylev, Mikaël Monet, Jorge Pérez et al.ICLR 2020 · 17 citations
- The Descriptive Complexity of Graph Neural NetworksMartin GroheLICS 2023 · 7 citations
Related papers
- The Correspondence Between Bounded Graph Neural Networks and Fragments of First-Order LogicBernardo Cuenca Grau, Eva Feng, Przemyslaw Andrzej WalegaAAAI 2026 · 4 citations
- Towards a Complete Logical Framework for GNN ExpressivenessTuo XuICLR 2025
- Is uniform expressivity too restrictive? Towards efficient expressivity of GNNsSammy Khalife, Josué Tonelli-CuetoICLR 2025
- Recurrent Graph Neural Networks and Their Connections to Bisimulation and LogicMaximilian Pflueger, David Tena Cucala, Egor V. KostylevAAAI 2024 · 20 citations
- Calibrate and Boost Logical Expressiveness of GNN Over Multi-Relational and Temporal GraphsYeyuan Chen, Dingmin WangNeurIPS 2023 · 2 citations
