# Position: Don't be Afraid of Over-Smoothing And Over-Squashing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07419 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07419/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 52 of its 57 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 52)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.02907/) (2016)
- [Graph Attention Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.10903/) (2017)
- [Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.01212/) (2017)
- [Open Graph Benchmark: Datasets for Machine Learning on Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00687/) (2020)
- [Searching for MobileNetV3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.02244/) (2019)
- [Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Web-Scale Recommender Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.01973/) (2018)
- [Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolutional Networks: A Deep Learning Framework for Traffic Forecasting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.04875/) (2017)
- [EfficientNetV2: Smaller Models and Faster Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.00298/) (2021)
- [Deeper Insights into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.07606/) (2018)
- [Pitfalls of Graph Neural Network Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.05868/) (2018)
- [Revisiting Semi-Supervised Learning with Graph Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.08861/) (2016)
- [Simple and Deep Graph Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.02133/) (2020)
- [How Attentive are Graph Attention Networks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.14491/) (2021)
- [TUDataset: A collection of benchmark datasets for learning with graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08663/) (2020)
- [Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable Graph Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12454/) (2022)
- [On the Bottleneck of Graph Neural Networks and its Practical Implications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.05205/) (2020)
- [Measuring and Relieving the Over-smoothing Problem for Graph Neural Networks from the Topological View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03211/) (2019)
- [Understanding over-squashing and bottlenecks on graphs via curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.14522/) (2021)
- [Rethinking Graph Transformers with Spectral Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03893/) (2021)
- [A critical look at the evaluation of GNNs under heterophily: Are we really making progress?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.11640/) (2023)
- [PairNorm: Tackling Oversmoothing in GNNs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.12223/) (2019)
- [Long Range Graph Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.08164/) (2022)
- [A Note on Over-Smoothing for Graph Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.13318/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Oversmoothing in Graph Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.10993/) (2023)
- [A Fair Comparison of Graph Neural Networks for Graph Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.09893/) (2019)
- [On Over-Squashing in Message Passing Neural Networks: The Impact of Width, Depth, and Topology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02941/) (2023)
- [Cooperative Game Theory Approaches for Network Partitioning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.03587/) (2017)
- [ETA Prediction with Graph Neural Networks in Google Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.11482/) (2021)
- [Not too little, not too much: a theoretical analysis of graph (over)smoothing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12156/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Probing Graph Neural Network Activation Patterns Through Graph Topology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21092/) (2026)
- [Unifying Graph Neural Networks Through a Common Layer Equation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.16097/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Over-smoothing and over-squashing have been extensively studied in the literature on Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) over the past years. We challenge this prevailing focus in GNN research, arguing that these phenomena are less critical for practical applications than assumed. We suggest that performance decreases often stem from uninformative receptive fields rather than over-smoothing. We support this position with extensive experiments on several standard benchmark datasets, demonstrating that accuracy and over-smoothing are mostly uncorrelated and that optimal model depths remain small even with mitigation techniques, thus highlighting the negligible role of over-smoothing. Similarly, we challenge that over-squashing is always detrimental in practical applications. Instead, we posit that the distribution of relevant information over the graph frequently factorises and is often localised within a small k-hop neighbourhood, questioning the necessity of jointly observing entire receptive fields or engaging in an extensive search for long-range interactions. The results of our experiments show that architectural interventions designed to mitigate over-squashing fail to yield significant performance gains. This position paper advocates for a paradigm shift in theoretical research, urging a diligent analysis of learning tasks and datasets using statistics that measure the underlying distribution of label-relevant information to better understand their localisation and factorisation.