gLSTM: Mitigating Over-Squashing by Increasing Storage Capacity
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) leverage the graph structure to transmit information between nodes, typically through the message-passing mechanism. While these models have found a wide variety of applications, they are known to suffer from over-squashing, where information from a large receptive field of node representations is collapsed into a single fixed sized vector, resulting in an information bottleneck. In this paper, we re-examine the over-squashing phenomenon through the lens of model storage and retrieval capacity, which we define as the amount of information that can be stored in a node's representation for later use. We study some of the limitations of existing tasks used to measure over-squashing and introduce a new synthetic task to demonstrate that an information bottleneck can saturate this capacity. Furthermore, we adapt ideas from the sequence modeling literature on associative memories, fast weight programmers, and the xLSTM model to develop a novel GNN architecture with improved capacity. We demonstrate strong performance of this architecture both on our capacity synthetic task, as well as a range of real-world graph benchmarks.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 2 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
LRGB
| # | Model | MAE ↓ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GCN | 0.2421
±0.0016 best reported | best at pub: Can Classic GNNs Be Strong Baselines for Graph-level Tasks? Simple Architectures Meet Excellence (ICML 2025) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 2 | IPR-MPNN | 0.2422
±0.0007 | |
| 3 | TANGO-GPS | 0.2422
±0.0014 | |
| 5 | GIN | 0.2429
±0.0019 | |
| 7 | GatedGCN | 0.2431
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Can Classic GNNs Be Strong Baselines for Graph-level Tasks? Simple Architectures Meet Excellence (ICML 2025) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 49 | GINE | 0.2473
±0.0017 | This paper |
| 85 | GPS | 0.2500
±0.0005 best reported | best at pub: Recurrent Distance Filtering for Graph Representation Learning (ICML 2023) best today: Bridging Input Feature Spaces Towards Graph Foundation Models (ICLR 2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 111 | MPNNs | 0.2527
±0.0015 | This paper |
| 116 | DRew-GCN | 0.2536 best reported | best at pub: Towards Dynamic Message Passing on Graphs (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 136 | kGCN-SSM | 0.2581
±0.0003 | |
| 201 | MLP | 0.4351
±0.0008 |
| # | Model | AP ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | S^2GCN | 0.7311
±0.0066 | |
| 2 | S4G | 0.7293
±0.0004 | |
| 3 | BuNN | 0.7276
±0.0065 | |
| 4 | GCN | 0.7261
±0.0011 best reported | best at pub: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 5 | MPNNs | 0.7250
±0.0023 | This paper |
| 8 | kGCN-SSM | 0.7212
±0.0027 best reported | |
| 11 | DRew-GCN | 0.7150
±0.0044 best reported | best at pub: Spatio-Spectral Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 26 | GIN | 0.7059
±0.0089 | |
| 34 | GatedGCN | 0.7006
±0.0033 best reported | best at pub: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 78 | GINE | 0.6621
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 87 | GPS | 0.6562
±0.0115 best reported | best at pub: A Generalization of ViT/MLP-Mixer to Graphs (ICML 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 181 | MLP | 0.4060
±0.0021 |
