Understanding convolution on graphs via energies
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) typically operate by message-passing, where the state of a node is updated based on the information received from its neighbours. Most message-passing models act as graph convolutions, where features are mixed by a shared, linear transformation before being propagated over the edges. On node-classification tasks, graph convolutions have been shown to suffer from two limitations: poor performance on heterophilic graphs, and over-smoothing. It is common belief that both phenomena occur because such models behave as low-pass filters, meaning that the Dirichlet energy of the features decreases along the layers incurring a smoothing effect that ultimately makes features no longer distinguishable. In this work, we rigorously prove that simple graph-convolutional models can actually enhance high frequencies and even lead to an asymptotic behaviour we refer to as over-sharpening, opposite to over-smoothing. We do so by showing that linear graph convolutions with symmetric weights minimize a multi-particle energy that generalizes the Dirichlet energy; in this setting, the weight matrices induce edge-wise attraction (repulsion) through their positive (negative) eigenvalues, thereby controlling whether the features are being smoothed or sharpened. We also extend the analysis to non-linear GNNs, and demonstrate that some existing time-continuous GNNs are instead always dominated by the low frequencies. Finally, we validate our theoretical findings through ablations and real-world experiments.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 3 datasets 9 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9672
±0.0147 | |
| 2 | DoG | 0.9660
±0.0210 | |
| 3 | GPF-plus | 0.9583
±0.0419 | |
| 34 | MLP | 0.9230
±0.0070 | |
| 39 | GGCN | 0.9213
±0.0305 best reported | best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025) |
| 53 | GraphSAGE | 0.9000
±0.0365 | |
| 82 | GRAFF | 0.8838
±0.0453 | This paper |
| 106 | GRAFF_NL | 0.8649
±0.0484 | This paper |
| 217 | GRAND | 0.8140
±0.0350 best reported | best today: When Graph Neural Networks Meet Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ICLR 2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 257 | GCN | 0.7933
±0.0447 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025) |
| 376 | CGNN | 0.7140
±0.0410 best reported | best today: Graph Neural Aggregation-diffusion with Metastability (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9541
±0.0272 | |
| 2 | ACM-GCN | 0.9480
±0.0380 | |
| 3 | RF-GCN | 0.9429 | |
| 15 | GGCN | 0.9230
±0.0367 best reported | best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 22 | GPRGNN | 0.9157
±0.0196 best reported | best at pub: Simplifying approach to Node Classification in Graph Neural Networks (2021) best today: Simplified PCNet with Robustness (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 24 | MLP | 0.9136
±0.0070 best reported | best at pub: Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) best today: Node-oriented Spectral Filtering for Graph Neural Networks (2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 35 | GCNII | 0.8918
±0.0396 best reported | best at pub: Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Chebyshev Approximation, Revisited (NeurIPS 2022) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) |
| 68 | H2GCN | 0.8623
±0.0471 best reported | best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 93 | Sheaf(max) | 0.8486
±0.0471 | This paper |
| 112 | GRAFF | 0.8405
±0.0610 | This paper |
| 138 | SAGE | 0.8269 | |
| 142 | GRAND | 0.8246
±0.0709 best reported | best today: Graph Navier–Stokes Networks (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 157 | GraphSAGE | 0.8196
±0.0739 best reported | best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022) best today: Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 158 | GAT | 0.8190
±0.0540 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) |
| 170 | GCN | 0.8082
±0.0360 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) best today: Bayesian Neighborhood Adaptation for Graph Neural Networks (TMLR 2025) |
| 213 | GRAFF_NL | 0.7730
±0.0324 | This paper |
| 319 | CGNN | 0.6622
±0.0769 | This paper |
| 342 | Geom-GCN | 0.6412 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: Steering Graph Neural Networks with Pinning Control (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 389 | PairNorm | 0.5892
±0.0315 | prev best: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DiGGR | 0.4535
±0.0353 | |
| 2 | TRIGON | 0.4402
±0.0028 | |
| 3 | DoG | 0.4320
±0.0120 | |
| 38 | GCNII | 0.3744
±0.0130 | prev best: Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Chebyshev Approximation, Revisited (NeurIPS 2022) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 42 | MLP | 0.4026
±0.0108 best reported | best at pub: Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Chebyshev Approximation, Revisited (NeurIPS 2022) best today: Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network (2023) |
| 52 | GPRGNN | 0.3992
±0.0067 best reported | best at pub: Simplifying approach to Node Classification in Graph Neural Networks (2021) best today: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) |
| 62 | GGCN | 0.3929
±0.0048 best reported | best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 68 | GraphSAGE | 0.3899
±0.0085 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: A Quasi-Wasserstein Loss for Learning Graph Neural Networks (WWW 2023) |
| 71 | H2GCN | 0.3885
±0.0117 best reported | best at pub: ES-GNN: Generalizing Graph Neural Networks Beyond Homophily with Edge Splitting (2022) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) |
| 87 | Geom-GCN | 0.3810 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 101 | Sheaf(max) | 0.3781
±0.0115 | This paper |
| 129 | GRAFF | 0.3711
±0.0108 | This paper |
| 135 | GCN | 0.3690 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 182 | GAT | 0.3605
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Restructuring Graphs for Higher Homophily via Adaptive Spectral Clustering (AAAI 2022) best today: Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling (NeurIPS 2022) |
| 188 | GRAFF_NL | 0.3596
±0.0095 | This paper |
| 189 | CGNN | 0.3595
±0.0086 | This paper |
| 203 | GRAND | 0.3562
±0.0101 | This paper |
| 266 | GIN | 0.3410
±0.0030 | |
| 408 | PairNorm | 0.2740
±0.0124 | This paper |
