Local Virtual Nodes for Alleviating Over-Squashing in Graph Neural Networks

Tugrul Hasan Karabulut, Inci M. Baytas

Main figure for Local Virtual Nodes for Alleviating Over-Squashing in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Over-squashing is a challenge in training graph neural networks for tasks involving long-range dependencies. In such tasks, a GNN's receptive field should be large enough to enable communication between distant nodes. However, gathering information from a wide range of neighborhoods and squashing its content into fixed-size node representations makes message-passing vulnerable to bottlenecks. Graph rewiring and adding virtual nodes are commonly studied remedies that create additional pathways around bottlenecks to mitigate over-squashing. However, these techniques alter the input graph's global topology and disrupt the domain knowledge encoded in the original graph structure, both of which could be essential to specific tasks and domains. This study presents Local Virtual Nodes (LVN) with trainable embeddings to alleviate the effects of over-squashing without significantly corrupting the global structure of the input graph. The position of the LVNs is determined by the node centrality, which indicates the existence of potential bottlenecks. Thus, the proposed approach aims to improve the connectivity in the regions with likely bottlenecks. Furthermore, trainable LVN embeddings shared across selected central regions facilitate communication between distant nodes without adding more layers. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that LVNs can enhance structural connectivity and significantly improve performance on graph and node classification tasks. The code can be found at https://github.com/ALLab-Boun/LVN/.

Proposed method: LVN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 10 datasets 31 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
actual #21 vs paper #117 96 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #117 96 places worse
paper 0.8759 ±0.0022
paper 0.8759 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0245
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
114
DIGL
0.8761 ±0.0029
This paper
118
BORF
0.8758 ±0.0033
This paper
121
SDRF
actual #121 vs paper #121
0.8751 ±0.0029
actual #121 vs paper #121
paper 0.8751 ±0.0029
150
LVN
0.8690 ±0.0038
This paper
152
FoSR
0.8688 ±0.0031
This paper
164
PANDA
0.8669 ±0.0043
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
actual #44 vs paper #271 227 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #271 227 places worse
paper 0.7358 ±0.0027
paper 0.7358 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0675
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
181
LVN
0.7498 ±0.0048
This paper
182
PANDA
0.7497 ±0.0048
This paper
237
FoSR
0.7388 ±0.0032
This paper
247
DIGL
0.7376 ±0.0035
This paper
248
SDRF
actual #248 vs paper #248
0.7374 ±0.0034
actual #248 vs paper #248
paper 0.7374 ±0.0034
292
BORF
0.7332 ±0.0028
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010

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
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #754 691 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #754 691 places worse
paper 0.7140 ±0.0312
paper 0.7140 ±0.0312 Δ at pub 0.2080
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
455
LVN
0.8478 ±0.0290
This paper
522
PANDA
0.8300 ±0.0188
This paper
562
LASER
actual #562 vs paper #683 121 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0673
best reported
actual #562 vs paper #683 121 places worse
paper 0.7684 ±0.0246
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7684 ±0.0246 Δ at pub 0.0536
577
BORF
actual #577 vs paper #686 109 places worse
0.8168 ±0.0796
best reported
actual #577 vs paper #686 109 places worse
paper 0.7650 ±0.0340
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7650 ±0.0340 Δ at pub 0.0518
605
FoSR
actual #605 vs paper #605
0.8040 ±0.0243
actual #605 vs paper #605
paper 0.8040 ±0.0243

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8040 ±0.0243 Δ at pub 0.0451
633
SDRF
actual #633 vs paper #739 106 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #633 vs paper #739 106 places worse
paper 0.7330 ±0.0262
paper 0.7330 ±0.0262 Δ at pub 0.0620
699
DIGL
0.7600 ±0.0307
This paper
760
Last layer FA
0.6940 ±0.0324
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #349 326 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #349 326 places worse
paper 0.4856 ±0.0234
paper 0.4856 ±0.0234 Δ at pub 0.3404
30
GIN
0.8220 ±0.0210
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
213
FoSR
actual #213 vs paper #348 135 places worse
0.7681 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #348 135 places worse
paper 0.4877 ±0.0231
paper 0.4877 ±0.0231 Δ at pub 0.2803
220
SDRF
actual #220 vs paper #356 136 places worse
0.7648 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #220 vs paper #356 136 places worse
paper 0.4655 ±0.0258
paper 0.4655 ±0.0258 Δ at pub 0.2993
243
Last layer FA
actual #243 vs paper #348 105 places worse
0.7543 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #243 vs paper #348 105 places worse
paper 0.5114 ±0.0111
paper 0.5114 ±0.0111 Δ at pub 0.2429
286
LASER
actual #286 vs paper #286
0.7188 ±0.0057
actual #286 vs paper #286
paper 0.7188 ±0.0057

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7188 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0096
288
LVN
0.7152 ±0.0066
This paper
310
PANDA
0.6806 ±0.0062
This paper
338
DIGL
actual #338 vs paper #361 23 places worse
0.5751 ±0.0590
best reported
actual #338 vs paper #361 23 places worse
paper 0.3292 ±0.0523
paper 0.3292 ±0.0523 Δ at pub 0.2459
#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
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #240 204 places worse
0.6650 ±0.0691
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #240 204 places worse
paper 0.2803 ±0.0202
best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)
paper 0.2803 ±0.0202 Δ at pub 0.3847
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
164
Last layer FA
actual #164 vs paper #245 81 places worse
0.4818 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #164 vs paper #245 81 places worse
paper 0.2727 ±0.0181
paper 0.2727 ±0.0181 Δ at pub 0.2092
170
FoSR
actual #170 vs paper #259 89 places worse
0.4555 ±0.0126
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #259 89 places worse
paper 0.2357 ±0.0131
paper 0.2357 ±0.0131 Δ at pub 0.2198
189
SDRF
actual #189 vs paper #236 47 places worse
0.3958 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #189 vs paper #236 47 places worse
paper 0.2853 ±0.0162
paper 0.2853 ±0.0162 Δ at pub 0.1105
201
DIGL
actual #201 vs paper #243 42 places worse
0.3760 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #243 42 places worse
paper 0.2747 ±0.0168
paper 0.2747 ±0.0168 Δ at pub 0.1013
206
BORF
actual #206 vs paper #251 45 places worse
0.3550 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #251 45 places worse
paper 0.2577 ±0.0171
paper 0.2577 ±0.0171 Δ at pub 0.0973
209
LASER
actual #209 vs paper #214 5 places worse
0.3530 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #209 vs paper #214 5 places worse
paper 0.3380 ±0.0176

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3380 ±0.0176 Δ at pub 0.0150
222
PANDA
0.3207 ±0.0186
This paper
223
LVN
0.3140 ±0.0209
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ID-GNN+BEC
0.8150 ±0.0240
2
GIN+BEC
0.8080 ±0.0330
3
GCN+BEC
0.7990 ±0.0340
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #157 153 places worse
0.7980 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #157 153 places worse
paper 0.5002 ±0.0131
paper 0.5002 ±0.0131 Δ at pub 0.2978
14
GIN
0.7810 ±0.0350
112
FoSR
actual #112 vs paper #157 45 places worse
0.7181 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #112 vs paper #157 45 places worse
paper 0.5012 ±0.0126
paper 0.5012 ±0.0126 Δ at pub 0.2169
132
Last layer FA
actual #132 vs paper #157 25 places worse
0.7091 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #132 vs paper #157 25 places worse
paper 0.4990 ±0.0157
paper 0.4990 ±0.0157 Δ at pub 0.2101
135
SDRF
actual #135 vs paper #157 22 places worse
0.7021 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #157 22 places worse
paper 0.4976 ±0.0134
paper 0.4976 ±0.0134 Δ at pub 0.2045
138
LVN
0.6872 ±0.0148
This paper
147
DIGL
actual #147 vs paper #157 10 places worse
0.6439 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #147 vs paper #157 10 places worse
paper 0.5028 ±0.0126
paper 0.5028 ±0.0126 Δ at pub 0.1411
148
LASER
actual #148 vs paper #152 4 places worse
0.6433 ±0.0330
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #152 4 places worse
paper 0.5752 ±0.0144
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)
paper 0.5752 ±0.0144 Δ at pub 0.0681
149
PANDA
0.6408 ±0.0132
This paper
151
BORF
actual #151 vs paper #158 7 places worse
0.6082 ±0.0388
best reported
actual #151 vs paper #158 7 places worse
paper 0.4728 ±0.0147
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)
paper 0.4728 ±0.0147 Δ at pub 0.1354
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIN-0
0.9240 ±0.0250
2
GIN-ε
0.9220 ±0.0230
3
DMoN
0.9100 ±0.0100
19
LASER
actual #19 vs paper #19
0.8813 ±0.0055
actual #19 vs paper #19
paper 0.8813 ±0.0055

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8813 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0267
30
FoSR
actual #30 vs paper #45 15 places worse
0.8593 ±0.0279
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #45 15 places worse
paper 0.7002 ±0.0091
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)
paper 0.7002 ±0.0091 Δ at pub 0.1591
32
LVN
0.8562 ±0.0099
This paper
37
SDRF
actual #37 vs paper #47 10 places worse
0.8442 ±0.0278
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #47 10 places worse
paper 0.6272 ±0.0270
best at pub: Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs (ICLR 2023)
paper 0.6272 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.2170
41
PANDA
0.8008 ±0.0124
This paper
48
Last layer FA
0.5868 ±0.0242
This paper
49
GCN
actual #49 vs paper #49
0.5653 ±0.0260
actual #49 vs paper #49
paper 0.5653 ±0.0260
paper 0.5653 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0653
50
DIGL
0.5044 ±0.0094
This paper

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
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #576 319 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #576 319 places worse
paper 0.5200 ±0.0210
best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5200 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.2733
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 0.4995 ±0.0143
445
SDRF
actual #445 vs paper #576 131 places worse
0.5151 ±0.0171
actual #445 vs paper #576 131 places worse
paper 0.5151 ±0.0171
478
DIGL
actual #478 vs paper #576 98 places worse
0.5157 ±0.0178
actual #478 vs paper #576 98 places worse
paper 0.5157 ±0.0178
480
FoSR
actual #480 vs paper #576 96 places worse
0.6185 ±0.0141
best reported
actual #480 vs paper #576 96 places worse
paper 0.5286 ±0.0172
paper 0.5286 ±0.0172 Δ at pub 0.0899
483
LVN
0.6137 ±0.0203
This paper
574
PANDA
0.5411 ±0.0215
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
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #505 335 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #505 335 places worse
paper 0.4827 ±0.0182
paper 0.4827 ±0.0182 Δ at pub 0.3255
401
DIGL
actual #401 vs paper #500 99 places worse
0.4865 ±0.0150
actual #401 vs paper #500 99 places worse
paper 0.4865 ±0.0150
431
SDRF
actual #431 vs paper #509 78 places worse
0.4762 ±0.0175
actual #431 vs paper #509 78 places worse
paper 0.4762 ±0.0175
480
BORF
actual #480 vs paper #481 1 place worse
0.5080 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #480 vs paper #481 1 place worse
paper 0.5065 ±0.0162

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5065 ±0.0162 Δ at pub 0.0015
496
LVN
0.4921 ±0.0189
This paper
505
FoSR
actual #505 vs paper #533 28 places worse
0.4830 ±0.0161
best reported
actual #505 vs paper #533 28 places worse
paper 0.4416 ±0.0146
paper 0.4416 ±0.0146 Δ at pub 0.0414
547
PANDA
0.4249 ±0.0259
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #122 70 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #122 70 places worse
paper 0.6112 ±0.0046
paper 0.6112 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0921
87
BORF
actual #87 vs paper #118 31 places worse
0.6530 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #118 31 places worse
paper 0.6149 ±0.0053
paper 0.6149 ±0.0053 Δ at pub 0.0381
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
116
DIGL
0.6208 ±0.0054
This paper
120
FoSR
actual #120 vs paper #120
0.6123 ±0.0053
actual #120 vs paper #120
paper 0.6123 ±0.0053
paper 0.6123 ±0.0053 Δ at pub 0.0193
122
SDRF
actual #122 vs paper #122
0.6119 ±0.0055
actual #122 vs paper #122
paper 0.6119 ±0.0055
paper 0.6119 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0179
131
LVN
0.6043 ±0.0067
This paper
169
MLP
0.5429
191
PANDA
0.5055 ±0.0070
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result