mHC-GNN: Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections for Graph Neural Networks
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) suffer from over-smoothing in deep architectures and expressiveness bounded by the 1-Weisfeiler-Leman (1-WL) test. We adapt Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections (mHC), recently proposed for Transformers, to graph neural networks. Our method, mHC-GNN, expands node representations across $n$ parallel streams and constrains stream-mixing matrices to the Birkhoff polytope via Sinkhorn-Knopp normalization. We prove that mHC-GNN exhibits exponentially slower over-smoothing (rate $(1-)^L/n$ vs.\ $(1-)^L$) and can distinguish graphs beyond 1-WL. Experiments on 10 datasets with 4 GNN architectures show consistent improvements. Depth experiments from 2 to 128 layers reveal that standard GNNs collapse to near-random performance beyond 16 layers, while mHC-GNN maintains over 74\ Ablations confirm that the manifold constraint is essential: removing it causes up to 82\
Benchmark Results
Tested on 3 datasets 12 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 best reported | best at pub: A Quasi-Wasserstein Loss for Learning Graph Neural Networks (WWW 2023) best today: Graph Neural Networks Need Cluster-Normalize-Activate Modules (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 189 | SAGE | 0.8269 | |
| 211 | GAT | 0.8162
±0.0645 best reported | best at pub: Equivariance Everywhere All At Once: A Recipe for Graph Foundation Models (2025) |
| 257 | GCN | 0.7933
±0.0447 best reported | best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025) |
| 326 | GIN | 0.7460
±0.0080 best reported | |
| 447 | mHC n=2 | 0.6433
±0.0426 | This paper |
| 463 | mHC n=4 | 0.6270
±0.0513 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DiGGR | 0.4535
±0.0353 | |
| 2 | TRIGON | 0.4402
±0.0028 | |
| 3 | DoG | 0.4320
±0.0120 | |
| 42 | MLP | 0.4026
±0.0108 | |
| 68 | GraphSAGE | 0.3899
±0.0085 best reported | best at pub: A Quasi-Wasserstein Loss for Learning Graph Neural Networks (WWW 2023) |
| 135 | GCN | 0.3690 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 182 | GAT | 0.3605
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling (NeurIPS 2022) |
| 266 | GIN | 0.3410
±0.0030 best reported | best at pub: What Can We Learn From MIMO Graph Convolutions? (IJCAI 2025) |
| 367 | mHC n=4 | 0.2923
±0.0062 | This paper |
| 370 | mHC n=2 | 0.2912
±0.0061 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer) | 0.8693 | |
| 2 | Dir-GNN+CNA | 0.8586
±0.0180 | |
| 3 | GAT | 0.8560 best reported | best at pub: The Heterophilic Snowflake Hypothesis: Training and Empowering GNNs for Heterophilic Graphs (KDD 2024) |
| 52 | GCN | 0.7033 best reported | best at pub: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 108 | SAGE | 0.6340
±0.0300 | |
| 115 | GraphSAGE | 0.6215
±0.0042 best reported | best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling (NeurIPS 2022) |
| 169 | MLP | 0.5429 | |
| 200 | mHC n=4 | 0.4982
±0.0189 | This paper |
| 207 | mHC n=2 | 0.4823
±0.0212 | This paper |
| 219 | GIN | 0.4610
±0.0040 best reported | best at pub: Discovering the Representation Bottleneck of Graph Neural Networks (2022) best today: What Can We Learn From MIMO Graph Convolutions? (IJCAI 2025) |
