On dimensionality of feature vectors in MPNNs

We revisit the classical result of Morris et al.~(AAAI'19) that message-passing graphs neural networks (MPNNs) are equal in their distinguishing power to the Weisfeiler--Leman (WL) isomorphism test. Morris et al.~show their simulation result with ReLU activation function and $O(n)$-dimensional feature vectors, where $n$ is the number of nodes of the graph. By introducing randomness into the architecture, Aamand et al.~(NeurIPS'22) were able to improve this bound to $O(\log n)$-dimensional feature vectors, again for ReLU activation, although at the expense of guaranteeing perfect simulation only with high probability. Recently, Amir et al.~(NeurIPS'23) have shown that for any non-polynomial analytic activation function, it is enough to use just 1-dimensional feature vectors. In this paper, we give a simple proof of the result of Amit et al.~and provide an independent experimental validation of it.

Three iterations of $$-WL test distinguish non isometric clouds of $d$-dimensional points

The Weisfeiler--Lehman (WL) test is a fundamental iterative algorithm for checking isomorphism of graphs. It has also been observed that it underlies the design of several graph neural network architectures, whose capabilities and performance can be understood in terms of the expressive power of this test. Motivated by recent developments in machine learning applications to datasets involving three-dimensional objects, we study when the WL test is {\em complete} for clouds of euclidean points represented by complete distance graphs, i.e., when it can distinguish, up to isometry, any arbitrary such cloud. Our main result states that the $(d-1)$-dimensional WL test is complete for point clouds in $d$-dimensional Euclidean space, for any $d\ge 2$, and that only three iterations of the test suffice. Our result is tight for $d = 2, 3$. We also observe that the $d$-dimensional WL test only requires one iteration to achieve completeness.

No Agreement Without Loss: Learning and Social Choice in Peer Review

In peer review systems, reviewers are often asked to evaluate various features of submissions, such as technical quality or novelty. A score is given to each of the predefined features and based on these the reviewer has to provide an overall quantitative recommendation. However, reviewers differ in how much they value different features. It may be assumed that each reviewer has her own mapping from a set of criteria scores (score vectors) to a recommendation, and that different reviewers have different mappings in mind. Recently, Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia introduced a novel framework for obtaining an aggregated mapping by means of Empirical Risk Minimization based on $L(p,q)$ loss functions, and studied its axiomatic properties in the sense of social choice theory. We provide a body of new results about this framework. On the one hand we study a trade-off between strategy-proofness and the ability of the method to properly capture agreements of the majority of reviewers. On the other hand, we show that dropping a certain unrealistic assumption makes the previously reported results to be no longer valid. Moreover, in the general case, strategy-proofness fails dramatically in the sense that a reviewer is able to make significant changes to the solution in her favor by arbitrarily small changes to their true beliefs. In particular, no approximate version of strategy-proofness is possible in this general setting since the method is not even continuous w.r.t. the data. Finally we propose a modified aggregation algorithm which is continuous and show that it has good axiomatic properties.