gLSTM: Mitigating Over-Squashing by Increasing Storage Capacity

Hugh Blayney, Alvaro Arroyo, Xiaowen Dong, Michael M. Bronstein

Main figure for 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.

Proposed method: MPNNs

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

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #31 30 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #31 30 places worse
paper 0.2460 ±0.0007
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
7
GatedGCN
actual #7 vs paper #57 50 places worse
0.2431 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #57 50 places worse
paper 0.2477 ±0.0009
49
GINE
0.2473 ±0.0017
This paper
85
GPS
actual #85 vs paper #96 11 places worse
0.2500 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #85 vs paper #96 11 places worse
paper 0.2509 ±0.0014

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2509 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0009 Δ today 0.0009
111
MPNNs
0.2527 ±0.0015
This paper
116
DRew-GCN
actual #116 vs paper #164 48 places worse
0.2536
best reported
actual #116 vs paper #164 48 places worse
paper 0.2766 ±0.0019
best at pub: Towards Dynamic Message Passing on Graphs (NeurIPS 2024)
paper 0.2766 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0230
136
kGCN-SSM
actual #136 vs paper #136
0.2581 ±0.0003
actual #136 vs paper #136
paper 0.2581 ±0.0003
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #49 45 places worse
0.7261 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #49 45 places worse
paper 0.6860 ±0.0050
paper 0.6860 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0401
5
MPNNs
0.7250 ±0.0023
This paper
8
kGCN-SSM
actual #8 vs paper #47 39 places worse
0.7212 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #47 39 places worse
paper 0.6902 ±0.0022
11
DRew-GCN
actual #11 vs paper #56 45 places worse
0.7150 ±0.0044
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #56 45 places worse
paper 0.6804 ±0.0144
best at pub: Spatio-Spectral Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2024)
paper 0.6804 ±0.0144 Δ at pub 0.0346
26
GIN
0.7059 ±0.0089
34
GatedGCN
actual #34 vs paper #58 24 places worse
0.7006 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #58 24 places worse
paper 0.6765 ±0.0047
paper 0.6765 ±0.0047 Δ today 0.0241
78
GINE
0.6621 ±0.0067
This paper
87
GPS
actual #87 vs paper #94 7 places worse
0.6562 ±0.0115
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #94 7 places worse
paper 0.6534 ±0.0091

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6534 ±0.0091 Δ at pub 0.0028
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere