Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.00367 v2 pith:FFPT77T3 submitted 2023-09-01 cs.LG

Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark

classification cs.LG
keywords graphlrgbempiricallong-rangebenchmarkdatasetshyperparameterlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent Long-Range Graph Benchmark (LRGB, Dwivedi et al. 2022) introduced a set of graph learning tasks strongly dependent on long-range interaction between vertices. Empirical evidence suggests that on these tasks Graph Transformers significantly outperform Message Passing GNNs (MPGNNs). In this paper, we carefully reevaluate multiple MPGNN baselines as well as the Graph Transformer GPS (Ramp\'a\v{s}ek et al. 2022) on LRGB. Through a rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that the reported performance gap is overestimated due to suboptimal hyperparameter choices. It is noteworthy that across multiple datasets the performance gap completely vanishes after basic hyperparameter optimization. In addition, we discuss the impact of lacking feature normalization for LRGB's vision datasets and highlight a spurious implementation of LRGB's link prediction metric. The principal aim of our paper is to establish a higher standard of empirical rigor within the graph machine learning community.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Benchmarking Sheaf Neural Networks for Inductive Tasks

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    On 14 inductive graph benchmarks, sheaf neural networks underperform strong GNN baselines, and their performance is driven more by the surrounding architecture than by the sheaf diffusion mechanism.