ICML 2025

Mitigating Over-Squashing in Graph Neural Networks by Spectrum-Preserving Sparsification

Langzhang Liang, Fanchen Bu, Zixing Song, Zenglin Xu, Shirui Pan, Kijung Shin

Main figure for Mitigating Over-Squashing in Graph Neural Networks by Spectrum-Preserving Sparsification

Abstract

The message-passing paradigm of Graph Neural Networks often struggles with exchanging information across distant nodes typically due to structural bottlenecks in certain graph regions, a limitation known as over-squashing. To reduce such bottlenecks, graph rewiring, which modifies graph topology, has been widely used. However, existing graph rewiring techniques often overlook the need to preserve critical properties of the original graph, e.g., spectral properties. Moreover, many approaches rely on increasing edge count to improve connectivity, which introduces significant computational overhead and exacerbates the risk of over-smoothing. In this paper, we propose a novel graph rewiring method that leverages spectrum-preserving graph sparsification, for mitigating over-squashing. Our method generates graphs with enhanced connectivity while maintaining sparsity and largely preserving the original graph spectrum, effectively balancing structural bottleneck reduction and graph property preservation. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating its superiority over strong baseline methods in classification accuracy and retention of the Laplacian spectrum.

Proposed method: GOKU

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 7 baseline values 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
562
LASER
actual #562 vs paper #611 49 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0673
best reported
actual #562 vs paper #611 49 places worse
paper 0.8030 ±0.0160
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8030 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0190
574
GOKU
0.8180 ±0.0140
This paper
577
BORF
actual #577 vs paper #656 79 places worse
0.8168 ±0.0796
best reported
actual #577 vs paper #656 79 places worse
paper 0.7820 ±0.0160
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7820 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0348
579
DR
0.8160 ±0.0170
This paper
605
FoSR
actual #605 vs paper #704 99 places worse
0.8040 ±0.0243
best reported
actual #605 vs paper #704 99 places worse
paper 0.7560 ±0.0170
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)
paper 0.7560 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0480
633
SDRF
actual #633 vs paper #633
0.7950 ±0.0260
actual #633 vs paper #633
paper 0.7950 ±0.0260

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7950 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0220
646
GTR
actual #646 vs paper #646
0.7900 ±0.0140
actual #646 vs paper #646
paper 0.7900 ±0.0140

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7900 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0037
691
None
actual #691 vs paper #691
0.7610 ±0.0310
actual #691 vs paper #691
paper 0.7610 ±0.0310

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7610 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0060
#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
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
170
FoSR
actual #170 vs paper #236 66 places worse
0.4555 ±0.0126
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #236 66 places worse
paper 0.2880 ±0.0100
paper 0.2880 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1675
189
SDRF
actual #189 vs paper #219 30 places worse
0.3958 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #189 vs paper #219 30 places worse
paper 0.3240 ±0.0130
paper 0.3240 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0718
191
None
actual #191 vs paper #215 24 places worse
0.3902 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #215 24 places worse
paper 0.3350 ±0.0130
paper 0.3350 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0552
206
BORF
actual #206 vs paper #222 16 places worse
0.3550 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #222 16 places worse
paper 0.3140 ±0.0150
paper 0.3140 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0410
209
LASER
actual #209 vs paper #209
0.3530 ±0.0130
actual #209 vs paper #209
paper 0.3530 ±0.0130

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3530 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0097
215
GOKU
0.3380 ±0.0120
This paper
238
GTR
actual #238 vs paper #238
0.2840 ±0.0180
actual #238 vs paper #238
paper 0.2840 ±0.0180

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2840 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0207

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
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
279
None
actual #279 vs paper #597 318 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #279 vs paper #597 318 places worse
paper 0.4640 ±0.0450
paper 0.4640 ±0.0450 Δ at pub 0.3140
322
BORF
actual #322 vs paper #581 259 places worse
0.7488 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #322 vs paper #581 259 places worse
paper 0.4990 ±0.0340
333
DR
actual #333 vs paper #413 80 places worse
0.7430 ±0.0138
best reported
actual #333 vs paper #413 80 places worse
paper 0.6780 ±0.0250
paper 0.6780 ±0.0250 Δ today 0.0650
366
GOKU
0.7240 ±0.0220
This paper
445
SDRF
actual #445 vs paper #600 155 places worse
0.6446 ±0.0038
best reported
actual #445 vs paper #600 155 places worse
paper 0.4450 ±0.0390
480
FoSR
actual #480 vs paper #597 117 places worse
0.6185 ±0.0141
best reported
actual #480 vs paper #597 117 places worse
paper 0.4600 ±0.0160
paper 0.4600 ±0.0160 Δ today 0.1585
544
GTR
actual #544 vs paper #584 40 places worse
0.5788 ±0.0165
best reported
actual #544 vs paper #584 40 places worse
paper 0.4950 ±0.0290
paper 0.4950 ±0.0290 Δ today 0.0838
597
LASER
0.4650 ±0.0450
This paper
#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
288
GOKU
0.6940 ±0.0210
This paper
301
DR
actual #301 vs paper #301
0.6803 ±0.0162
best reported
actual #301 vs paper #301
paper 0.6790 ±0.0470

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6790 ±0.0470 Δ today 0.0013
372
LASER
0.6080 ±0.0360
This paper
385
GTR
0.5920 ±0.0480
This paper
431
SDRF
actual #431 vs paper #547 116 places worse
0.5460 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #431 vs paper #547 116 places worse
paper 0.4220 ±0.0150
447
None
actual #447 vs paper #548 101 places worse
0.5366 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #447 vs paper #548 101 places worse
paper 0.4150 ±0.0180
480
BORF
0.5080 ±0.0110
This paper
505
FoSR
actual #505 vs paper #553 48 places worse
0.4830 ±0.0161
best reported
actual #505 vs paper #553 48 places worse
paper 0.4020 ±0.0160
paper 0.4020 ±0.0160 Δ today 0.0810
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere