Mitigating Over-Smoothing and Over-Squashing using Augmentations of Forman-Ricci Curvature

Lukas Fesser Melanie Weber

Main figure for Mitigating Over-Smoothing and Over-Squashing using Augmentations of Forman-Ricci Curvature

Abstract

While Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been successfully leveraged for learning on graph-structured data across domains, several potential pitfalls have been described recently. Those include the inability to accurately leverage information encoded in long-range connections (over-squashing), as well as difficulties distinguishing the learned representations of nearby nodes with growing network depth (over-smoothing). An effective way to characterize both effects is discrete curvature: Long-range connections that underlie over-squashing effects have low curvature, whereas edges that contribute to over-smoothing have high curvature. This observation has given rise to rewiring techniques, which add or remove edges to mitigate over-smoothing and over-squashing. Several rewiring approaches utilizing graph characteristics, such as curvature or the spectrum of the graph Laplacian, have been proposed. However, existing methods, especially those based on curvature, often require expensive subroutines and careful hyperparameter tuning, which limits their applicability to large-scale graphs. Here we propose a rewiring technique based on Augmented Forman-Ricci curvature (AFRC), a scalable curvature notation, which can be computed in linear time. We prove that AFRC effectively characterizes over-smoothing and over-squashing effects in message-passing GNNs. We complement our theoretical results with experiments, which demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves state-of-the-art performance while significantly reducing the computational cost in comparison with other methods. Utilizing fundamental properties of discrete curvature, we propose effective heuristics for hyperparameters in curvature-based rewiring, which avoids expensive hyperparameter searches, further improving the scalability of the proposed approach.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
577
BORF
actual #577 vs paper #707 130 places worse
0.8168 ±0.0796
best reported
actual #577 vs paper #707 130 places worse
paper 0.7540 ±0.0280
paper 0.7540 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.0540 Δ today 0.0628
605
FoSR
actual #605 vs paper #759 154 places worse
0.8040 ±0.0243
best reported
actual #605 vs paper #759 154 places worse
paper 0.7000 ±0.0220
633
SDRF
actual #633 vs paper #780 147 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #633 vs paper #780 147 places worse
paper 0.6510 ±0.0220
691
None
actual #691 vs paper #783 92 places worse
0.7610 ±0.0310
best reported
actual #691 vs paper #783 92 places worse
paper 0.6270 ±0.0210
738
AFR-4
0.7340 ±0.0240
This paper
755
AFR-3
0.7140 ±0.0220
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
170
FoSR
actual #170 vs paper #255 85 places worse
0.4555 ±0.0126
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #255 85 places worse
paper 0.2490 ±0.0110
paper 0.2490 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.2065
189
SDRF
actual #189 vs paper #256 67 places worse
0.3958 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #189 vs paper #256 67 places worse
paper 0.2430 ±0.0120
paper 0.2430 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.1528
191
None
actual #191 vs paper #254 63 places worse
0.3902 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #254 63 places worse
paper 0.2540 ±0.0130
paper 0.2540 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.1362
200
AFR-3
0.3760 ±0.0120
This paper
206
BORF
actual #206 vs paper #222 16 places worse
0.3550 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #222 16 places worse
paper 0.3190 ±0.0120
paper 0.3190 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0360
221
AFR-4
0.3210 ±0.0140
This paper

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
322
BORF
actual #322 vs paper #470 148 places worse
0.7488 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #322 vs paper #470 148 places worse
paper 0.6230 ±0.0200
406
AFR-3
0.6870 ±0.0310
This paper
454
AFR-4
0.6380 ±0.0380
This paper
577
GCN with AFR-4
0.5140 ±0.0050
This paper
584
GCN with AFR-3
0.4970 ±0.0050
This paper
587
GCN with BORF
0.4890 ±0.0050
This paper
596
GCN with FoSR
0.4690 ±0.0120
This paper
601
GCN with None
0.4410 ±0.0050
This paper
602
GCN with SDRF
0.4360 ±0.0120
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
468
GIN AFR-3
0.5190 ±0.0420
This paper
483
GCN AFR-3
0.5050 ±0.0430
This paper
498
GCN AFR-4
0.4890 ±0.0330
This paper
503
GIN BORF
0.4840 ±0.0250
This paper
507
GCN BORF
0.4810 ±0.0290
This paper
512
GIN AFR-4
0.4730 ±0.0230
This paper
517
GCN None
0.4680 ±0.0300
This paper
537
GCN FoSR
0.4390 ±0.0110
This paper
540
GCN SDRF
0.4310 ±0.0120
This paper

LRGB

Peptides-func

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is AP. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ORC
0.6900 ±0.0100
2
MinCut
0.6700 ±0.0200
3
DMoN
0.6700 ±0.0200
6
FoSR
0.4430 ±0.0220
This paper
7
SDRF
0.4180 ±0.0150
This paper
8
None
0.4050 ±0.0210
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.4901
2
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
3
GPS
0.4440 ±0.0065
16
GatedGCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
45
GCN
0.2078 ±0.0031
56
AFR-3
0.1010 ±0.0110
This paper
57
BORF
0.1010 ±0.0120
This paper
58
AFR-4
0.0980 ±0.0110
This paper
59
FoSR
0.0930 ±0.0140
This paper
61
SDRF
0.0850 ±0.0100
This paper
63
None
0.0780 ±0.0040
This paper
74
MLP
0.0310 ±0.0160
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere