Training Matters: Unlocking Potentials of Deeper Graph Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance limit of Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) and the fact that we cannot stack more of them to increase the performance, which we usually do for other deep learning paradigms, are pervasively thought to be caused by the limitations of the GCN layers, including insufficient expressive power, etc. However, if so, for a fixed architecture, it would be unlikely to lower the training difficulty and to improve performance by changing only the training procedure, which we show in this paper not only possible but possible in several ways. This paper first identify the training difficulty of GCNs from the perspective of graph signal energy loss. More specifically, we find that the loss of energy in the backward pass during training nullifies the learning of the layers closer to the input. Then, we propose several methodologies to mitigate the training problem by slightly modifying the GCN operator, from the energy perspective. After empirical validation, we confirm that these changes of operator lead to significant decrease in the training difficulties and notable performance boost, without changing the composition of parameters. With these, we conclude that the root cause of the problem is more likely the training difficulty than the others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".