NeurIPS 2025

Deeper with Riemannian Geometry: Overcoming Oversmoothing and Oversquashing for Graph Foundation Models

Li Sun, Zhen Huang, Ming Zhang, Philip S. Yu

Main figure for Deeper with Riemannian Geometry: Overcoming Oversmoothing and Oversquashing for Graph Foundation Models

Abstract

Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) is the building block of graph foundation models, but fundamentally suffer from oversmoothing and oversquashing. There has recently been a surge of interest in fixing both issues. Existing efforts primarily adopt global approaches, which may be beneficial in some regions but detrimental in others, ultimately leading to the suboptimal expressiveness. In this paper, we begin by revisiting oversquashing through a global measure -- spectral gap $ $ -- and prove that the increase of $ $ leads to gradient vanishing with respect to the input features, thereby undermining the effectiveness of message passing. Motivated by such theoretical insights, we propose a local approach that adaptively adjusts message passing based on local structures. To achieve this, we connect local Riemannian geometry with MPNNs, and establish a novel nonhomogeneous boundary condition to address both oversquashing and oversmoothing. Building on the Robin condition, we design a GBN network with local bottleneck adjustment, coupled with theoretical guarantees. Extensive experiments on homophilic and heterophilic graphs show the expressiveness of GBN. Furthermore, GBN does not exhibit performance degradation even when the network depth exceeds $256$ layers.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

Amazon-Computers

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ACC; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use ACC only.

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelACC ↑Paper
1
BORF
0.9176 ±0.0063
This paper
2
MPNN
0.9133 ±0.0032
This paper
3
MPNN+VN
0.9080 ±0.0088
This paper
4
GIN
0.9069 ±0.0126
This paper
5
VCR-Graphormer
0.9053 ±0.0001
This paper
6
HGCN
0.8998 ±0.0156
This paper
7
CoBFormer
0.8996 ±0.0054
This paper
8
DR
0.8989 ±0.0052
This paper
9
SPEXPHORMER
0.8973 ±0.0039
This paper
10
ProxyGap
0.8921 ±0.0076
This paper
11
SWAN
0.8857 ±0.0084
This paper
12
Graph-Mamba
0.8854 ±0.0027
This paper
13
GAT
0.8836 ±0.0134
This paper
14
GREAD
0.8821 ±0.0186
This paper
15
GCN
0.8820 ±0.0144
This paper
16
GraphNormv2
0.8726 ±0.0016
This paper
17
G2-GCN
0.8708 ±0.0134
This paper
18
UniFilter
0.8616 ±0.0280
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #194 193 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #194 193 places worse
paper 0.7743 ±0.0083
paper 0.7743 ±0.0083 Δ at pub 0.1559
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
24
MPNN
0.8621 ±0.0039
This paper
28
BORF
0.8589 ±0.0028
This paper
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #219 188 places worse
0.8533
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #219 188 places worse
paper 0.7581 ±0.0103
paper 0.7581 ±0.0103 Δ at pub 0.0952
35
SPEXPHORMER
actual #35 vs paper #35
0.8453 ±0.0015
actual #35 vs paper #35
paper 0.8453 ±0.0015
prev best: Even Sparser Graph Transformers (NeurIPS 2024)
paper 0.8453 ±0.0015 Δ at pub 0.0633
37
VCR-Graphormer
actual #37 vs paper #37
0.8432 ±0.0001
actual #37 vs paper #37
paper 0.8432 ±0.0001
paper 0.8432 ±0.0001 Δ at pub 0.0663
40
Graph-Mamba
0.8407 ±0.0076
This paper
42
UniFilter
0.8400 ±0.0026
This paper
43
CoBFormer
0.8395 ±0.0028
This paper
44
MPNN+VN
0.8367 ±0.0066
This paper
54
GIN
actual #54 vs paper #59 5 places worse
0.8303 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #59 5 places worse
paper 0.8237 ±0.0245

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8237 ±0.0245 Δ at pub 0.0066
72
ProxyGap
0.8134 ±0.0076
This paper
121
GREAD
0.7925 ±0.0116
This paper
123
SWAN
0.7920 ±0.0121
This paper
182
G2-GCN
0.7785 ±0.0134
This paper
188
DR
0.7762 ±0.0016
This paper
209
GraphNormv2
0.7693 ±0.0045
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
242
HGCN
0.7432 ±0.0067
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
57
GREAD
actual #57 vs paper #163 106 places worse
0.8973 ±0.0449
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #163 106 places worse
paper 0.8437 ±0.0463

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8437 ±0.0463 Δ at pub 0.0536
105
UniFilter
actual #105 vs paper #273 168 places worse
0.8672 ±0.0377
best reported
actual #105 vs paper #273 168 places worse
paper 0.7826 ±0.0130
paper 0.7826 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0846
146
MPNN
0.8501 ±0.0651
This paper
149
G2-GCN
0.8486 ±0.0543
This paper
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #440 229 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #440 229 places worse
paper 0.6522 ±0.0907
paper 0.6522 ±0.0907 Δ at pub 0.1640
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #561 304 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #561 304 places worse
paper 0.5583 ±0.0599
best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5583 ±0.0599 Δ at pub 0.2350
290
SWAN
0.7696 ±0.0729
This paper
291
SPEXPHORMER
0.7696 ±0.0365
This paper
296
CoBFormer
actual #296 vs paper #296
0.7652 ±0.0238
actual #296 vs paper #296
paper 0.7652 ±0.0238

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7652 ±0.0238 Δ at pub 0.0265
313
MPNN+VN
0.7565 ±0.0677
This paper
322
BORF
actual #322 vs paper #322
0.7488 ±0.0012
actual #322 vs paper #322
paper 0.7488 ±0.0012
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #594 268 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #594 268 places worse
paper 0.4737 ±0.0212
333
DR
actual #333 vs paper #383 50 places worse
0.7430 ±0.0138
best reported
actual #333 vs paper #383 50 places worse
paper 0.7068 ±0.0160
paper 0.7068 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0362
334
ProxyGap
0.7421 ±0.0125
This paper
349
Graph-Mamba
0.7333 ±0.0127
This paper
370
GraphNormv2
0.7207 ±0.0156
This paper
462
HGCN
0.6278 ±0.0178
This paper
464
VCR-Graphormer
0.6263 ±0.0050
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