Unifying over-smoothing and over-squashing in graph neural networks: A physics informed approach and beyond

Zhiqi Shao, Dai Shi, Andi Han, Yi Guo, Qianchuan Zhao, Junbin Gao

Main figure for Unifying over-smoothing and over-squashing in graph neural networks: A physics informed approach and beyond

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as one of the leading approaches for machine learning on graph-structured data. Despite their great success, critical computational challenges such as over-smoothing, over-squashing, and limited expressive power continue to impact the performance of GNNs. In this study, inspired from the time-reversal principle commonly utilized in classical and quantum physics, we reverse the time direction of the graph heat equation. The resulted reversing process yields a class of high pass filtering functions that enhance the sharpness of graph node features. Leveraging this concept, we introduce the Multi-Scaled Heat Kernel based GNN (MHKG) by amalgamating diverse filtering functions' effects on node features. To explore more flexible filtering conditions, we further generalize MHKG into a model termed G-MHKG and thoroughly show the roles of each element in controlling over-smoothing, over-squashing and expressive power. Notably, we illustrate that all aforementioned issues can be characterized and analyzed via the properties of the filtering functions, and uncover a trade-off between over-smoothing and over-squashing: enhancing node feature sharpness will make model suffer more from over-squashing, and vice versa. Furthermore, we manipulate the time again to show how G-MHKG can handle both two issues under mild conditions. Our conclusive experiments highlight the effectiveness of proposed models. It surpasses several GNN baseline models in performance across graph datasets characterized by both homophily and heterophily.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
63
G-MHKG
0.8960 ±0.0060
This paper
162
MHKG
0.8450 ±0.0030
This paper
195
HKGCN
0.8240 ±0.0070
This paper
196
UFG
actual #196 vs paper #196
0.8230 ±0.0090
actual #196 vs paper #196
paper 0.8230 ±0.0090

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8230 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0005
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #266 55 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #266 55 places worse
paper 0.7880 ±0.0090

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7880 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0100 Δ today 0.0282
217
GRAND
actual #217 vs paper #239 22 places worse
0.8020 ±0.0150
actual #217 vs paper #239 22 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0150

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8020 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0452
241
SJLR
0.8010 ±0.0090
This paper
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #305 48 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #305 48 places worse
paper 0.7570 ±0.0100
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7570 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0270 Δ today 0.0363
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #326
0.7460 ±0.0080
actual #326 vs paper #326
paper 0.7460 ±0.0080
paper 0.7460 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.4557
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #24
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #24
paper 0.9130 ±0.0070

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9130 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0006
25
G-MHKG
0.9020 ±0.0090
This paper
72
MHKG
0.8620 ±0.0060
This paper
129
UFG
0.8320 ±0.0030
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
142
GRAND
actual #142 vs paper #265 123 places worse
0.8246 ±0.0709
best reported
actual #142 vs paper #265 123 places worse
paper 0.7220 ±0.0310

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7220 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0996 Δ today 0.1026
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #222 64 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #222 64 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0100
paper 0.7600 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0590
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #316 146 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #316 146 places worse
paper 0.6650 ±0.1380

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6650 ±0.1380 Δ at pub 0.1270 Δ today 0.1432
201
GIN
0.7800 ±0.0190
This paper
247
HKGCN
0.7420 ±0.0210
This paper
268
SJLR
0.7190 ±0.0190
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published