Residual Connections and Normalization Can Provably Prevent Oversmoothing in GNNs
Abstract
Residual connections and normalization layers have become standard design choices for graph neural networks (GNNs), and were proposed as solutions to the mitigate the oversmoothing problem in GNNs. However, how exactly these methods help alleviate the oversmoothing problem from a theoretical perspective is not well understood. In this work, we provide a formal and precise characterization of (linearized) GNNs with residual connections and normalization layers. We establish that (a) for residual connections, the incorporation of the initial features at each layer can prevent the signal from becoming too smooth, and determines the subspace of possible node representations; (b) batch normalization prevents a complete collapse of the output embedding space to a one-dimensional subspace through the individual rescaling of each column of the feature matrix. This results in the convergence of node representations to the top-$k$ eigenspace of the message-passing operator; (c) moreover, we show that the centering step of a normalization layer --- which can be understood as a projection --- alters the graph signal in message-passing in such a way that relevant information can become harder to extract. Building on the last theoretical insight, we introduce, a novel and principled normalization layer. features a learnable centering step designed to preserve the integrity of the original graph signal. Experimental results corroborate the effectiveness of our method, demonstrating improved performance across various GNN architectures and tasks.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 454 | GIN GraphNormv2 | 0.8490
±0.0360 | This paper |
| 503 | GIN graph | 0.8370
±0.0420 | This paper |
| 543 | GCN graphv2 | 0.8260
±0.0460 | This paper |
| 547 | GAT batch | 0.8250
±0.0410 | This paper |
| 548 | GIN batch | 0.8250
±0.0500 | This paper |
| 552 | GCN powerembed | 0.8240
±0.0370 | This paper |
| 553 | GIN powerembed | 0.8240
±0.0370 | This paper |
| 580 | GAT graphv2 | 0.8160
±0.0380 | This paper |
| 581 | GCN batch | 0.8150
±0.0200 | This paper |
| 587 | GAT graph | 0.8120
±0.0480 | This paper |
| 588 | GCN graph | 0.8110
±0.0470 | This paper |
| 618 | GCN group | 0.7990
±0.0580 | This paper |
| 619 | GIN group | 0.7990
±0.0580 | This paper |
| 632 | GIN no norm | 0.7970
±0.0590 | This paper |
| 653 | GAT no norm | 0.7850
±0.0530 | This paper |
| 657 | GCN NoNorm | 0.7820
±0.0780 | This paper |
| 716 | GAT powerembed | 0.7500
±0.0540 | This paper |
| 731 | GAT group | 0.7390
±0.0360 | This paper |
| 779 | GIN pair | 0.6520
±0.0320 | This paper |
| 786 | GCN pair | 0.6130
±0.1010 | This paper |
| 788 | GAT pair | 0.5970
±0.1110 | This paper |
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 195 | PowerEmbed | 0.7830 best reported | best at pub: Global-Local Graph Neural Networks for Node-Classification (2024) |
| 457 | Graph | 0.5280
±0.0350 | This paper |
| 458 | group | 0.5280
±0.0400 | This paper |
| 462 | GraphNormv2 | 0.5220
±0.0420 | This paper |
| 479 | NoNorm | 0.5090
±0.0620 | This paper |
| 487 | batch | 0.5010
±0.0440 | This paper |
| 514 | pair | 0.4700
±0.0520 | This paper |
