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
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) that are based on the message passing (MP) paradigm exchange information between 1-hop neighbors to build node representations at each layer. In principle, such networks are not able to capture long-range interactions (LRI) that may be desired or necessary for learning a given task on graphs. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in development of Transformer-based methods for graphs that can consider full node connectivity beyond the original sparse structure, thus enabling the modeling of LRI. However, MP-GNNs that simply rely on 1-hop message passing often fare better in several existing graph benchmarks when combined with positional feature representations, among other innovations, hence limiting the perceived utility and ranking of Transformer-like architectures. Here, we present the Long Range Graph Benchmark (LRGB) with 5 graph learning datasets: PascalVOC-SP, COCO-SP, PCQM-Contact, Peptides-func and Peptides-struct that arguably require LRI reasoning to achieve strong performance in a given task. We benchmark both baseline GNNs and Graph Transformer networks to verify that the models which capture long-range dependencies perform significantly better on these tasks. Therefore, these datasets are suitable for benchmarking and exploration of MP-GNNs and Graph Transformer architectures that are intended to capture LRI.\n\narXiv, Papers with Code
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.005 |
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