Empirical Study of Over-Squashing in GNNs and Causal Estimation of Rewiring Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have exhibited state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of domains. Yet message-passing GNNs suffer from over-squashing---exponential compression of long-range information from distant nodes---which limits expressivity. Rewiring techniques can ease this bottleneck, but their practical impacts are unclear due to the lack of a direct empirical over-squashing metric. We propose a topology-focused method for assessing over-squashing between node pairs using the decay rate of their mutual sensitivity. We then extend these pairwise assessments to graph-level statistics. Coupling these metrics with a within-graph causal design, we quantify how rewiring strategies affect over-squashing on diverse graph- and node-classification benchmarks. Our extensive empirical analyses show that most graph classification datasets suffer from over-squashing (but to various extents), and rewiring effectively mitigates it---though the degree of mitigation, and its translation into performance gains, varies by dataset and method. We also found that over-squashing is less notable in node classification datasets, where rewiring often increases over-squashing, and performance variations are uncorrelated with over-squashing changes. These findings suggest that rewiring is most beneficial when over-squashing is both substantial and corrected with restraint---while overly aggressive rewiring, or rewiring applied to minimally over-squashed graphs, is unlikely to help and may even harm performance. Our plug-and-play diagnostic tool lets practitioners decide whether rewiring is likely to pay off.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".