Addressing the Limitations of Graph Neural Networks on Node-level Tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a generic data structure, graph is capable of modeling complex relations among objects in many real-world problems. Integrated with deep learning and graph signal processing, Graph Neural Network (GNN) has achieved significant progress for solving large, complex, graph-structured problems in recent decade. GNNs extend basic Neural Network (NN) by incorporating graph structures grounded on the relational inductive bias and have been commonly believed to outperform NNs in real-world tasks. Despite their efficacy, the development of deep and shallow GNNs is confronting two main challenges,• Limited expressive power of deep GNNs: Since graph convolution can be considered as a special form of Laplacian smoothing, stacking multiple GNN layers like the way as deep NNs can lead to an over-smoothing issue, where distant nodes become less identifiable and hard to be discriminated;• Performance degradation of shallow GNNs on heterophilic graphs: When the homophily principle is absent and nodes from different classes are more likely to be connected, the representation of nodes from distinct classes will be erroneously blending, leading nodes to be indistinguishable.In this dissertation, we will delve into these two obstacles in depth, analyzing themthoroughly and proposing methods to address them efficiently.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it