Every Node Counts: Improving the Training of Graph Neural Networks on Node Classification
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) are prominent in handling sparse and unstructured data efficiently and effectively. Specifically, GNNs were shown to be highly effective for node classification tasks, where labelled information is available for only a fraction of the nodes. Typically, the optimization process, through the objective function, considers only labelled nodes while ignoring the rest. In this paper, we propose novel objective terms for the training of GNNs for node classification, aiming to exploit all the available data and improve accuracy. Our first term seeks to maximize the mutual information between node and label features, considering both labelled and unlabelled nodes in the optimization process. Our second term promotes anisotropic smoothness in the prediction maps. Lastly, we propose a cross-validating gradients approach to enhance the learning from labelled data. Our proposed objectives are general and can be applied to various GNNs, and require no architectural modifications. Extensive experiments demonstrate our approach using popular GNNs like Graph Convolutional Networks (e.g., GCN and GCNII), and Graph Attention Networks (e.g., GAT), reading a consistent and significant accuracy improvement on 10 real-world node classification datasets.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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