ICLR 2024

Understanding Virtual Nodes: Oversquashing and Node Heterogeneity

Joshua Southern, Francesco Di Giovanni, Michael M. Bronstein, J. Lutzeyer

Main figure for Understanding Virtual Nodes: Oversquashing and Node Heterogeneity

Abstract

While message passing neural networks (MPNNs) have convincing success in a range of applications, they exhibit limitations such as the oversquashing problem and their inability to capture long-range interactions. Augmenting MPNNs with a virtual node (VN) removes the locality constraint of the layer aggregation and has been found to improve performance on a range of benchmarks. We provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the role of VNs and benefits thereof, through the lenses of oversquashing and sensitivity analysis. First, we characterize, precisely, how the improvement afforded by VNs on the mixing abilities of the network and hence in mitigating oversquashing, depends on the underlying topology. We then highlight that, unlike Graph-Transformers (GTs), classical instantiations of the VN are often constrained to assign uniform importance to different nodes. Consequently, we propose a variant of VN with the same computational complexity, which can have different sensitivity to nodes based on the graph structure. We show that this is an extremely effective and computationally efficient baseline for graph-level tasks.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values reported too low

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

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #183 182 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #183 182 places worse
paper 0.3496 ±0.0013
paper 0.3496 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.1036 Δ today 0.1075
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
7
GatedGCN
actual #7 vs paper #182 175 places worse
0.2431 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #182 175 places worse
paper 0.3420 ±0.0013
paper 0.3420 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0943 Δ today 0.0989
29
GatedGCN+PE+VN_G
0.2458 ±0.0006
This paper
32
GRIT
0.2460 ±0.0012
This paper
41
GatedGCN+PE-ViT
0.2465 ±0.0015
This paper
49
GINE
actual #49 vs paper #184 135 places worse
0.2473 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #184 135 places worse
paper 0.3547 ±0.0045
paper 0.3547 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.1074 Δ today 0.1074
58
GatedGCN+PE
0.2477 ±0.0009
This paper
66
Exphormer
0.2481 ±0.0007
This paper
85
GPS
actual #85 vs paper #96 11 places worse
0.2500 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #85 vs paper #96 11 places worse
paper 0.2509 ±0.0014

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2509 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0009 Δ today 0.0009
93
CRaWl
0.2506 ±0.0022
This paper
95
GatedGCN+PE-Mixer
0.2508 ±0.0007
This paper
115
DRew
actual #115 vs paper #115
0.2536 ±0.0015
actual #115 vs paper #115
paper 0.2536 ±0.0015
paper 0.2536 ±0.0015 Δ at pub 0.0245
123
SAN+RWSE
0.2545 ±0.0012
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published