NeurIPS 2025

A Signed Graph Approach to Understanding and Mitigating Oversmoothing in GNNs

Jiaqi Wang, Xinyi Wu, James Cheng, Yifei Wang

Main figure for A Signed Graph Approach to Understanding and Mitigating Oversmoothing in GNNs

Abstract

Deep graph neural networks (GNNs) often suffer from oversmoothing, where node representations become overly homogeneous with increasing depth. While techniques like normalization, residual connections, and edge dropout have been proposed to mitigate oversmoothing, they are typically developed independently, with limited theoretical understanding of their underlying mechanisms. In this work, we present a unified theoretical perspective based on the framework of signed graphs, showing that many existing strategies implicitly introduce negative edges that alter message-passing to resist oversmoothing. However, we show that merely adding negative edges in an unstructured manner is insufficient—the asymptotic behavior of signed propagation depends critically on the strength and organization of positive and negative edges. To address this limitation, we leverage the theory of structural balance, which promotes stable, cluster-preserving dynamics by connecting similar nodes with positive edges and dissimilar ones with negative edges. We propose Structural Balanced Propagation (SBP), a plug-and-play method that assigns signed edges based on either labels or feature similarity to explicitly enhance structural balance in the constructed signed graphs. Experiments on nine benchmarks across both homophilic and heterophilic settings demonstrate that SBP consistently improves classification accuracy and mitigates oversmoothing, even at depths of up to 300 layers. Our results provide a principled explanation for prior oversmoothing remedies and introduce a new direction for signed message-passing design in deep GNNs.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 15 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #300 294 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #300 294 places worse
paper 0.7396
235
Label-SBP
0.7662
This paper
271
BatchNorm
0.7493
This paper
274
Feature-SBP
0.7490
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020

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
actual #34 vs paper #345 311 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #345 311 places worse
paper 0.7351 ±0.0236
46
APPNP
actual #46 vs paper #409 363 places worse
0.9131 ±0.0197
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #409 363 places worse
paper 0.6838 ±0.0437
paper 0.6838 ±0.0437 Δ at pub 0.2293
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
271
Feature-SBP
0.7838
This paper
272
Label-SBP
0.7838
This paper
330
SGC
actual #330 vs paper #597 267 places worse
0.7440 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #597 267 places worse
paper 0.4595
paper 0.4595 Δ at pub 0.2845
386
DAGNN
actual #386 vs paper #483 97 places worse
0.7027 ±0.0493
best reported
actual #386 vs paper #483 97 places worse
paper 0.6135 ±0.0173
392
JKNet
actual #392 vs paper #499 107 places worse
0.7000 ±0.0549
best reported
actual #392 vs paper #499 107 places worse
paper 0.6000 ±0.0236
paper 0.6000 ±0.0236 Δ at pub 0.0378 Δ today 0.1000
432
Residual
0.6595 ±0.0132
This paper
499
PairNorm
actual #499 vs paper #577 78 places worse
0.6030 ±0.0430
best reported
actual #499 vs paper #577 78 places worse
paper 0.5135
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5135 Δ at pub 0.0895 Δ today 0.0895
514
DropEdge
actual #514 vs paper #514
0.5946 ±0.0811
actual #514 vs paper #514
paper 0.5946 ±0.0811

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5946 ±0.0811 Δ at pub 0.0026
592
ContraNorm
0.4838 ±0.0443
This paper
608
BatchNorm
0.3973 ±0.0124
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #336 315 places worse
0.9181 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #336 315 places worse
paper 0.6459 ±0.0330
paper 0.6459 ±0.0330 Δ at pub 0.2722
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #298 274 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #298 274 places worse
paper 0.6811 ±0.0265
paper 0.6811 ±0.0265 Δ at pub 0.2325
138
SAGE
0.8269
241
JKNet
actual #241 vs paper #554 313 places worse
0.7443 ±0.0830
best reported
actual #241 vs paper #554 313 places worse
paper 0.3973 ±0.0272
paper 0.3973 ±0.0272 Δ at pub 0.2135 Δ today 0.3470
250
DAGNN
actual #250 vs paper #527 277 places worse
0.7351 ±0.0718
best reported
actual #250 vs paper #527 277 places worse
paper 0.4487 ±0.0324
252
SGC
actual #252 vs paper #506 254 places worse
0.7350 ±0.0430
best reported
actual #252 vs paper #506 254 places worse
paper 0.4811 ±0.0315
paper 0.4811 ±0.0315 Δ at pub 0.2539
255
Feature-SBP
0.7297
This paper
284
Label-SBP
0.7027
This paper
359
Residual
0.6189 ±0.0391
This paper
374
DropEdge
actual #374 vs paper #524 150 places worse
0.6054 ±0.0530
best reported
actual #374 vs paper #524 150 places worse
paper 0.4595 ±0.0705
paper 0.4595 ±0.0705 Δ at pub 0.1459
389
PairNorm
actual #389 vs paper #471 82 places worse
0.5892 ±0.0315
best reported
actual #389 vs paper #471 82 places worse
paper 0.5135
paper 0.5135 Δ at pub 0.0757 Δ today 0.0757
501
ContraNorm
0.4863 ±0.0016
This paper
520
BatchNorm
0.4649 ±0.0108
This paper

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
UniGAP
0.6375 ±0.0110
2
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.5961 ±0.0100
3
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.5897 ±0.0150
12
SAGE
0.5569 ±0.0023
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #169 87 places worse
0.5066 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #169 87 places worse
paper 0.4283 ±0.0004
paper 0.4283 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0783
84
MLP
actual #84 vs paper #191 107 places worse
0.5058
best reported
actual #84 vs paper #191 107 places worse
paper 0.3814 ±0.0003
paper 0.3814 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.1244
169
ContraNorm
0.4298 ±0.0004
This paper
172
Residual
0.4269 ±0.0003
This paper
174
APPNP
0.4247 ±0.0003
This paper
175
Label-SBP
0.4241 ±0.0002
This paper
176
Feature-SBP
0.4231 ±0.0003
This paper
177
PairNorm
0.4230 ±0.0005
This paper
178
DropEdge
0.4230 ±0.0009
This paper
180
JKNet
0.4221 ±0.0005
This paper
185
DAGNN
0.4061 ±0.0003
This paper
189
BatchNorm
0.3968 ±0.0001
This paper
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