TSC: A Simple Two-Sided Constraint against Over-Smoothing
Abstract
Graph Convolutional Neural Network (GCN), a widely adopted method for analyzing relational data, enhances node discriminability through the aggregation of neighboring information. Usually, stacking multiple layers can improve the performance of GCN by leveraging information from high-order neighbors. However, the increase of the network depth will induce the over-smoothing problem, which can be attributed to the quality and quantity of neighbors changing: (a) neighbor quality, node's neighbors become overlapping in high order, leading to aggregated information becoming indistinguishable, (b) neighbor quantity, the exponentially growing aggregated neighbors submerges the node's initial feature by recursively aggregating operations. Current solutions mainly focus on one of the above causes and seldom consider both at once. Aiming at tackling both causes of over-smoothing in one shot, we introduce a simple Two-Sided Constraint (TSC) for GCNs, comprising two straightforward yet potent techniques: random masking and contrastive constraint. The random masking acts on the representation matrix's columns to regulate the degree of information aggregation from neighbors, thus preventing the convergence of node representations. Meanwhile, the contrastive constraint, applied to the representation matrix's rows, enhances the discriminability of the nodes. Designed as a plug-in module, TSC can be easily coupled with GCN or SGC architectures. Experimental analyses on diverse real-world graph datasets verify that our approach markedly reduces the convergence of node's representation and the performance degradation in deeper GCN.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 3 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 best reported | best at pub: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 45 | GCNII | 0.8893
±0.0137 best reported | best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023) best today: Large Language Model Meets Graph Neural Network in Knowledge Distillation (AAAI 2024) |
| 196 | GCN+TS | 0.8574
±0.0054 best reported | best today: Graph Transductive Sharpening: Leveraging Unlabeled Predictions in Node Classification (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 212 | SGC+TSC | 0.8540 | This paper |
| 223 | SGC | 0.8509
±0.0648 best reported | best at pub: LOGIN: A Large Language Model Consulted Graph Neural Network Training Framework (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 246 | NDLS | 0.8460
±0.0050 best reported | best at pub: Node Dependent Local Smoothing for Scalable Graph Learning (NeurIPS 2021) |
| 336 | ContraNorm(GCN) | 0.8370 | This paper |
| 445 | DropEdge(GCN) | 0.8280 | This paper |
| 446 | AIR(SGC) | 0.8280 | This paper |
| 547 | SJLR | 0.8190 | prev best: Design your own universe: a physics-informed agnostic method for enhancing graph neural networks (2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 | |
| 792 | DeepGCN | 0.7340 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 36 | GCNII | 0.8076
±0.0030 best reported | best at pub: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: NTFormer: A Composite Node Tokenized Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2024) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 96 | SGC | 0.7765
±0.0012 best reported | |
| 188 | GCN+TS | 0.7480 | This paper |
| 194 | SGC+TSC | 0.7470 | This paper |
| 197 | AIR(SGC) | 0.7460 | This paper |
| 266 | NDLS | 0.7360 | prev best: Node-wise Diffusion for Scalable Graph Learning (WWW 2023) |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 357 | ContraNorm(GCN) | 0.7280 | This paper |
| 436 | DropEdge(GCN) | 0.7230 | This paper |
| 456 | DropMessage(GCN) | 0.7210 | This paper |
| 587 | SJLR | 0.7060
±0.0040 best reported | |
| 810 | DeepGCN | 0.6270 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 best reported | best at pub: Node Identifiers: Compact, Discrete Representations for Efficient Graph Learning (ICLR 2024) |
| 58 | GCNII | 0.9030
±0.0043 best reported | best at pub: Feature Transportation Improves Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023) |
| 116 | SAGE | 0.8881
±0.0015 | |
| 141 | SGC | 0.8832
±0.0055 best reported | best at pub: LOGIN: A Large Language Model Consulted Graph Neural Network Training Framework (2024) |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 318 | SGC+TSC | 0.8250 | This paper |
| 392 | GCN+TS | 0.8074
±0.0030 best reported | best today: Graph Transductive Sharpening: Leveraging Unlabeled Predictions in Node Classification (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 398 | NDLS | 0.8070 | This paper |
| 480 | ContraNorm(GCN) | 0.7980 | This paper |
| 500 | DropEdge(GCN) | 0.7960 | This paper |
| 518 | DropMessage(GCN) | 0.7950 | This paper |
| 599 | AIR(SGC) | 0.7900 | This paper |
| 631 | SJLR | 0.7860 | |
| 778 | DeepGCN | 0.7570 | This paper |
