ICLR 2024

Residual Connections and Normalization Can Provably Prevent Oversmoothing in GNNs

Michael Scholkemper, Xinyi Wu, A. Jadbabaie, Michael T. Schaub

Main figure for 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

#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
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

#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
195
PowerEmbed
actual #195 vs paper #479 284 places worse
0.7830
best reported
actual #195 vs paper #479 284 places worse
paper 0.5080 ±0.0540
paper 0.5080 ±0.0540 Δ at pub 0.2750
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
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)