mHC-GNN: Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections for Graph Neural Networks

Subhankar Mishra

Main figure for 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

#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
actual #53 vs paper #558 505 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0365
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #558 505 places worse
paper 0.5622 ±0.0589
paper 0.5622 ±0.0589 Δ at pub 0.3378 Δ today 0.3378
189
SAGE
0.8269
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #544 333 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #544 333 places worse
paper 0.5784 ±0.0623
paper 0.5784 ±0.0623 Δ at pub 0.2378
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #533 276 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #533 276 places worse
paper 0.5838 ±0.0601
best at pub: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5838 ±0.0601 Δ at pub 0.2095
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #562 236 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #562 236 places worse
paper 0.5568 ±0.0645
447
mHC n=2
0.6433 ±0.0426
This paper
463
mHC n=4
0.6270 ±0.0513
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #68 vs paper #398 330 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #398 330 places worse
paper 0.2789 ±0.0063
paper 0.2789 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.1110
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #378 243 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #378 243 places worse
paper 0.2874 ±0.0051
paper 0.2874 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0816
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #385 203 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #385 203 places worse
paper 0.2845 ±0.0071
paper 0.2845 ±0.0071 Δ at pub 0.0760
266
GIN
actual #266 vs paper #410 144 places worse
0.3410 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #266 vs paper #410 144 places worse
paper 0.2712 ±0.0082
paper 0.2712 ±0.0082 Δ at pub 0.0698
367
mHC n=4
0.2923 ±0.0062
This paper
370
mHC n=2
0.2912 ±0.0061
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #284 281 places worse
0.8560
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #284 281 places worse
paper 0.2534 ±0.0145
paper 0.2534 ±0.0145 Δ at pub 0.6026
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #286 234 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #286 234 places worse
paper 0.2364 ±0.0109
paper 0.2364 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.4669
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
115
GraphSAGE
actual #115 vs paper #285 170 places worse
0.6215 ±0.0042
best reported
actual #115 vs paper #285 170 places worse
paper 0.2401 ±0.0123
paper 0.2401 ±0.0123 Δ at pub 0.3814
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
actual #219 vs paper #279 60 places worse
0.4610 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #219 vs paper #279 60 places worse
paper 0.2667 ±0.0134
paper 0.2667 ±0.0134 Δ at pub 0.1943 Δ today 0.1943
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)