Beyond Oversquashing: Understanding Signal Propagation in GNNs Via Observables
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) perform computations on graphs by routing the signal between graph regions using a graph shift operator or a message passing scheme. Often, the propagation of the signal leads to a loss of information, where the signal tends to diffuse across the graph instead of being deliberately routed between regions of interest. Two notions that depict this phenomenon are oversmoothing and oversquashing. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach for modeling signal propagation, inspired by quantum mechanics, using the notion of observables. Specifically, we model the place in the graph where the signal lies, how much the signal is concentrated there, and how much of the signal is propagated towards a location of interest when applying a GNN. Using these new concepts, we prove that standard spectral GNNs have poor signal propagation capabilities. We then propose a new type of spectral GNN, termed Schr\"odinger GNN, which we show has a superior capacity to route the signal across the graph.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 10 datasets 18 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9910
±0.0030 | |
| 2 | ID-GNN+BEC | 0.9830
±0.0360 | |
| 3 | SupCosine | 0.9830
±0.0250 | |
| 39 | GIN | 0.9330
±0.0290 best reported | best at pub: ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) |
| 63 | GCN | 0.9220
±0.0440 best reported | best at pub: Depth-Adaptive Graph Neural Networks via Learnable Bakry-Émery Curvature (KDD 2025) |
| 158 | GraphSAGE | 0.9040
±0.0780 | |
| 183 | GAT | 0.9010
±0.0580 best reported | best at pub: Breaking the Limits of Message Passing Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021) best today: The Expressive Power of Graph Neural Networks: A Survey (2023) |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 640 | Schrödinger PMO | 0.7925
±0.0619 | This paper |
| 700 | UniGCN | 0.7574
±0.0667 | This paper |
| 704 | Adaptive Unitary PMO | 0.7562
±0.0624 | This paper |
| 705 | Adaptive Unitary | 0.7553
±0.0595 | This paper |
| 707 | Schrödinger | 0.7542
±0.0611 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9410
±0.0330 | |
| 2 | GRDL | 0.8260
±0.0120 | |
| 3 | GMN | 0.8225 | |
| 32 | GIN | 0.7880
±0.0410 best reported | |
| 49 | GAT | 0.7800
±0.0300 best reported | |
| 67 | SAGE | 0.7726
±0.0228 | |
| 148 | GCN | 0.7600
±0.0320 best reported | best at pub: CI-GNN: A Granger Causality-Inspired Graph Neural Network for Interpretable Brain Network-Based Psychiatric Diagnosis (2023) best today: Simplifying Graph Convolutional Networks with Redundancy-Free Neighbors (2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 149 | MLP | 0.7600
±0.0320 | |
| 379 | Schrödinger PMO | 0.7268
±0.0305 | This paper |
| 419 | Adaptive Unitary | 0.7179
±0.0333 | This paper |
| 420 | Adaptive Unitary PMO | 0.7177
±0.0284 | This paper |
| 429 | Schrödinger | 0.7157
±0.0256 | This paper |
| 465 | UniGCN | 0.6919
±0.0301 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GMN | 0.7866 | |
| 2 | MemGNN | 0.7550 | |
| 3 | TFGW SP | 0.7510
±0.0500 | |
| 17 | GatedGCN | 0.7000
±0.0494 | |
| 20 | GAT | 0.6850
±0.0524 best reported | best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023) |
| 26 | GraphSAGE | 0.6817
±0.0545 | |
| 32 | GIN | 0.6767
±0.0583 best reported | best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023) |
| 36 | GCN | 0.6650
±0.0691 best reported | best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020) |
| 124 | MLP | 0.5583
±0.0352 | |
| 175 | Schr"odinger PMO | 0.4370
±0.0337 | This paper |
| 176 | Schr"odinger | 0.4350
±0.0489 | This paper |
| 183 | Adaptive Unitary PMO | 0.4183
±0.0444 | This paper |
| 184 | Adaptive Unitary | 0.4160
±0.0518 | This paper |
| 186 | UniGCN | 0.4030
±0.0663 | This paper |
LRGB
| # | Model | F1 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NeuralWalker | 0.4912
±0.0042 | |
| 2 | PPGT | 0.4641
±0.0033 | |
| 3 | CRaWl | 0.4588
±0.0079 | |
| 14 | GPS | 0.4440
±0.0065 best reported | best at pub: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) best today: Plain Transformers Can be Powerful Graph Learners (2025) |
| 19 | Exphormer | 0.4242
±0.0044 best reported | best at pub: Benchmarking Positional Encodings for GNNs and Graph Transformers (KDD 2024) |
| 41 | GatedGCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 best reported | best at pub: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) best today: Plain Transformers Can be Powerful Graph Learners (2025) |
| 42 | Gated-GCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 | |
| 54 | Schrödinger | 0.3507
±0.0019 | This paper |
| 69 | Lie UniGCN | 0.3153
±0.0035 | This paper |
| 71 | UniGCN | 0.2852
±0.0016 | This paper |
| 75 | GINE | 0.2718
±0.0054 best reported | best at pub: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) best today: Chimera: State Space Models Beyond Sequences (TMLR 2025) |
| 81 | GCN | 0.2380
±0.0160 best reported | best at pub: When Graph Neural Networks Meet Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ICLR 2024) |
| 93 | MLP | 0.1140
±0.0230 |
| # | Model | F1 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FloydNet | 0.4901 | |
| 2 | CRaWl | 0.4588
±0.0079 | This paper |
| 3 | GPS | 0.4440
±0.0065 | prev best: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) |
| 5 | Schrödinger | 0.4259
±0.0034 | This paper |
| 6 | Lie UniGCN | 0.4005
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 10 | Exphormer | 0.3960
±0.0027 | prev best: A Scalable and Effective Alternative to Graph Transformers (AAAI 2024) |
| 16 | GatedGCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 | prev best: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) |
| 23 | UniGCN | 0.3516
±0.0070 | This paper |
| 31 | DRew | 0.3314
±0.0024 | This paper |
| 33 | Gated-GCN | 0.2922
±0.0018 | |
| 34 | GINE | 0.2718
±0.0054 | prev best: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) |
| 45 | GCN | 0.2078
±0.0031 | prev best: Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark (TMLR 2023) |
| 74 | MLP | 0.0310
±0.0160 |
Heterophily Benchmark
Roman-empire
Global leaderboard →Sorted by AP. Highlighted rows are from other papers.
| # | Model | AP ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Schrödinger | 0.8856
±0.0071 | This paper |
| 2 | UniGCN | 0.8721
±0.0076 | This paper |
| 3 | GT | 0.8651
±0.0073 | This paper |
| 4 | SAGE | 0.8574
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 5 | Lie UniGCN | 0.8550
±0.0022 | This paper |
| 6 | GAT | 0.8087
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 7 | GCN | 0.7369
±0.0074 | This paper |
| # | Model | ROC-AUC ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BuNN | 0.9899
±0.0016 | |
| 2 | DC-GNN | 0.9850
±0.0021 | |
| 3 | Tango -GPS | 0.9839
±0.0054 | |
| 12 | Schrödinger | 0.9631
±0.0049 | This paper |
| 14 | Lie UniGCN | 0.9611
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 25 | UniGCN | 0.9427
±0.0058 | This paper |
| 36 | GAT | 0.9391
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Relieving the Over-Aggregating Effect in Graph Transformers (NeurIPS 2025) |
| 42 | GraphSAGE | 0.9358
±0.0005 | |
| 46 | SAGE | 0.9351
±0.0057 | This paper |
| 63 | GT | 0.9185
±0.0076 | This paper |
| 68 | GCN | 0.9150
±0.0006 best reported | best at pub: Gumbel-MPNN: Graph Rewiring with Gumbel-Softmax (2025) |
| 156 | MLP | 0.5099
±0.0147 |
| # | Model | ROC-AUC ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Polynormer-r | 0.8591
±0.0074 | |
| 2 | DC-GNN | 0.8588
±0.0081 | |
| 3 | TANGO-GPS | 0.8566
±0.0101 | |
| 10 | Lie UniGCN | 0.8518
±0.0043 | This paper |
| 13 | Schrödinger | 0.8509
±0.0017 | This paper |
| 17 | UniGCN | 0.8483
±0.0068 | This paper |
| 28 | GAT | 0.8443
±0.0100 best reported | best at pub: TopoBench: A Framework for Benchmarking Topological Deep Learning (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 50 | GCN | 0.8364
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 61 | GT | 0.8323
±0.0064 | This paper |
| 76 | SAGE | 0.8243
±0.0044 | This paper |
| 77 | GraphSAGE | 0.8243
±0.0044 | |
| 139 | MLP | 0.7362
±0.0020 |
| # | Model | ROC-AUC ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NID_GAT | 0.9703
±0.0002 | |
| 2 | NID_GCN | 0.9685
±0.0010 | |
| 3 | UniGAP | 0.8421
±0.0080 | |
| 9 | Schrödinger | 0.8014
±0.0020 | This paper |
| 11 | Lie UniGCN | 0.8001
±0.0043 | This paper |
| 15 | UniGCN | 0.7921
±0.0079 | This paper |
| 16 | GCN | 0.7902
±0.0060 best reported | |
| 26 | GAT | 0.7835
±0.0116 best reported | best at pub: Node Identifiers: Compact, Discrete Representations for Efficient Graph Learning (ICLR 2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 30 | GT | 0.7795
±0.0068 | This paper |
| 46 | GraphSAGE | 0.7721
±0.0130 | |
| 58 | SAGE | 0.7644
±0.0062 | This paper |
| 96 | MLP | 0.7082
±0.0010 |
GNNBenchmark
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Schrödinger | 0.9913
±0.0004 | This paper |
| 2 | CNN | 0.9907
±0.0007 | prev best: Equivariance with Learned Canonicalization Functions (ICML 2022) |
| 3 | MPNN | 0.9895
±0.0006 | This paper |
| 11 | GatedGCN | 0.9855
±0.0002 | |
| 32 | GIN | 0.9833
±0.0011 | prev best: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022) |
| 86 | GAT | 0.9755
±0.0003 best reported | best at pub: RandAlign: A Parameter-Free Method for Regularizing Graph Convolutional Networks (2024) |
| 95 | GraphSAGE | 0.9731
±0.0010 | |
| 121 | ChebConv | 0.9572
±0.0074 | This paper |
| 126 | MLP | 0.9534
±0.0014 | |
| 135 | GCN | 0.9405
±0.0005 best reported | best at pub: RandAlign: A Parameter-Free Method for Regularizing Graph Convolutional Networks (2024) |
