A Comprehensive Benchmark on Spectral GNNs: The Impact on Efficiency, Memory, and Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With recent advancements in graph neural networks (GNNs), spectral GNNs have received increasing popularity by virtue of their ability to retrieve graph signals in the spectral domain. These models feature uniqueness in efficient computation as well as rich expressiveness, which stems from advanced management and profound understanding of graph data. However, few systematic studies have been conducted to assess spectral GNNs, particularly in benchmarking their efficiency, memory consumption, and effectiveness in a unified and fair manner. There is also a pressing need to select spectral models suitable for learning specific graph data and deploying them to massive web-scale graphs, which is currently constrained by the varied model designs and training settings. In this work, we extensively benchmark spectral GNNs with a focus on the spectral perspective, demystifying them as spectral graph filters. We analyze and categorize 35 GNNs with 27 corresponding filters, spanning diverse formulations and utilizations of the graph data. Then, we implement the filters within a unified spectral-oriented framework with dedicated graph computations and efficient training schemes. In particular, our implementation enables the deployment of spectral GNNs over million-scale graphs and various tasks with comparable performance and less overhead. Thorough experiments are conducted on the graph filters with comprehensive metrics on effectiveness and efficiency, offering novel observations and practical guidelines that are only available from our evaluations across graph scales. Different from the prevailing belief, our benchmark reveals an intricate landscape regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of spectral graph filters, demonstrating the potential to achieve desirable performance through tailored spectral manipulation of graph data.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".