ICLR 2025

Demystifying Topological Message-Passing with Relational Structures: A Case Study on Oversquashing in Simplicial Message-Passing

Diaaeldin Taha, James Chapman, Marzieh Eidi, Karel Devriendt, Guido Montúfar

Main figure for Demystifying Topological Message-Passing with Relational Structures: A Case Study on Oversquashing in Simplicial Message-Passing

Abstract

Topological deep learning (TDL) has emerged as a powerful tool for modeling higher-order interactions in relational data. However, phenomena such as oversquashing in topological message-passing remain understudied and lack theoretical analysis. We propose a unifying axiomatic framework that bridges graph and topological message-passing by viewing simplicial and cellular complexes and their message-passing schemes through the lens of relational structures. This approach extends graph-theoretic results and algorithms to higher-order structures, facilitating the analysis and mitigation of oversquashing in topological message-passing networks. Through theoretical analysis and empirical studies on simplicial networks, we demonstrate the potential of this framework to advance TDL.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 8 datasets 6 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
166
RGIN (Clique, None, None)
0.8660 ±0.0060
This paper
263
GIN (None, Prune, None)
0.8440 ±0.0080
This paper
559
SIN (None, Prune, None)
0.8170 ±0.0080
This paper
681
CIN++ (Clique, None, None)
0.7940 ±0.0070
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
287
RGIN Clique FoSR
0.7340 ±0.0100
This paper
308
RGIN None FoSR
0.7320 ±0.0060
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
441
RGIN None None
0.7220 ±0.0100
This paper
452
RGIN Clique None
0.7210 ±0.0090
This paper
629
GIN None None
0.6990 ±0.0080
This paper
643
GIN None FoSR
0.6930 ±0.0080
This paper
652
GIN Clique None
0.6900 ±0.0080
This paper
670
GIN Clique FoSR
0.6860 ±0.0080
This paper
725
SIN None None
0.6690 ±0.0080
This paper
788
CIN++ (Clique, FoSR)
0.6440 ±0.0100
This paper
804
SIN Clique None
0.6320 ±0.0080
This paper
805
CIN++ (Clique, None)
0.6320 ±0.0090
This paper
829
SIN Clique FoSR
0.6020 ±0.0120
This paper
857
SIN None FoSR
0.5430 ±0.0110
This paper
879
CIN++ None FoSR
0.4490 ±0.0110
This paper
881
CIN++ None None
0.4470 ±0.0170
This paper

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
307
SIN
0.8850 ±0.0300
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #268 266 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #268 266 places worse
paper 0.7890 ±0.0060
paper 0.7890 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.2044
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #581 578 places worse
0.9727
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #581 578 places worse
paper 0.4960 ±0.0060
paper 0.4960 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.4767
19
CIN
actual #19 vs paper #367 348 places worse
0.8530 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #367 348 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0040
paper 0.7680 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0850 Δ today 0.0850
82
SIN
actual #82 vs paper #223 141 places worse
0.8280 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #223 141 places worse
paper 0.8000 ±0.0080
paper 0.8000 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0280
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
234
RGIN
0.7980 ±0.0070
This paper
413
RGCN
0.7500 ±0.0090
This paper
566
SGC
0.5680 ±0.0080
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
12
CIN
actual #12 vs paper #412 400 places worse
0.8050 ±0.0390
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #412 400 places worse
paper 0.7190 ±0.0100
paper 0.7190 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0860 Δ today 0.0860
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #372 340 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #372 340 places worse
paper 0.7280 ±0.0120

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7280 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0600
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
118
SIN
actual #118 vs paper #356 238 places worse
0.7640 ±0.0330
best reported
actual #118 vs paper #356 238 places worse
paper 0.7320 ±0.0150

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7320 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0320 Δ today 0.0320
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #163 15 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #163 15 places worse
paper 0.7580 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7580 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0020
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
185
RGCN
0.7560 ±0.0120
This paper
392
RGIN
0.7240 ±0.0140
This paper
484
SGC
0.6500 ±0.0150
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #159 127 places worse
0.6767 ±0.0583
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #159 127 places worse
paper 0.5000 ±0.0270
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5000 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.1767
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
284
SGC
0.2150 ±0.0160
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
379
RGIN (None, None)
0.5950 ±0.0500
This paper
436
CIN++ (Ring, None)
0.5420 ±0.0420
This paper
510
GIN (Ring, Prune)
0.4740 ±0.0410
This paper
529
SIN (None, Prune)
0.4470 ±0.0420
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
0.9010 ±0.0350
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
63
GCN
0.8310 ±0.0320
106
RGIN (Ring, Prune, Prune)
0.7460 ±0.0250
This paper
143
CIN++ (Clique, None, None)
0.6620 ±0.0280
This paper
164
SIN (Ring, None, None)
0.6120 ±0.0350
This paper
182
GIN (Clique, FoSR, FoSR)
0.5650 ±0.0260
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)