Big Claims, Small Margins: Do Reported GraphLLM Gains Survive Simple Baselines?

Michal Podstawski

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.28714

Big Claims, Small Margins: Do Reported GraphLLM Gains Survive Simple Baselines?

Michal Podstawski

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LLM-based methods for node classification on text-attributed graphs (TAGs) routinely report state-of-the-art accuracy. We ask how these results compare with inexpensive baselines run on the same splits. On the splits of three recent studies, we tune four baseline representatives with validation-only selection and compare them with the highest mean that each paper reports for an LLM-based method in the matched setting. Correct & Smooth on TF-IDF features trails this reference by a median of 2.3 percentage points, and an MLP on frozen e5-large-v2 embeddings by 2.8 points. Correct & Smooth is within 3 points of the reference or better on 15 of 24 tasks, but the reference is significantly higher on 12 of 22 testable tasks, so several reported gains remain substantial. Reading released code next to the papers, we also document evaluation risks: selection of hyperparameters or checkpoints on the test set, labels of test-pool nodes used in training, baseline numbers reused without disclosure, and a text-label misalignment in a released Cora loader. Reports of the same method on the same split also differ by up to 12.5 points across papers whose configurations are not documented to match.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Michal Podstawski. 2026-10-20. Big Claims, Small Margins: Do Reported GraphLLM Gains Survive Simple Baselines?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28714

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Limits of Post-Selection Generalization

While statistics and machine learning offer numerous methods for ensuring generalization, these methods often fail in the presence of adaptivity---the common practice in which the choice of analysis depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. A recent line of work has introduced powerful, general purpose algorithms that ensure post hoc generalization (also called robust or post-selection generalization), which says that, given the output of the algorithm, it is hard to find any statistic for which the data differs significantly from the population it came from. In this work we show several limitations on the power of algorithms satisfying post hoc generalization. First, we show a tight lower bound on the error of any algorithm that satisfies post hoc generalization and answers adaptively chosen statistical queries, showing a strong barrier to progress in post selection data analysis. Second, we show that post hoc generalization is not closed under composition, despite many examples of such algorithms exhibiting strong composition properties.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Quantifying Symptom Causality in Clinical Decision Making: An Exploration Using CausaLM

Current machine learning approaches to medical diagnosis often rely on correlational patterns between symptoms and diseases, risking misdiagnoses when symptoms are ambiguous or common across multiple conditions. In this work, we move beyond correlation to investigate the causal influence of key symptoms-specifically "chest pain" on diagnostic predictions. Leveraging the CausaLM framework, we generate counterfactual text representations in which target concepts are effectively "forgotten" enabling a principled estimation of the causal effect of that concept on a model's predicted disease distribution. By employing Textual Representation-based Average Treatment Effect (TReATE), we quantify how the presence or absence of a symptom shapes the model's diagnostic outcomes, and contrast these findings against correlation-based baselines such as CONEXP. Our results offer deeper insight into the decision-making behavior of clinical NLP models and have the potential to inform more trustworthy, interpretable, and causally-grounded decision support tools in medical practice.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Understanding and Mitigating Under-Confidence in GNNs from the Final Layer

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness on graph-based tasks. However, their predictive confidence is often miscalibrated, typically exhibiting under-confidence, which harms the reliability of their decisions. Existing calibration methods for GNNs normally introduce additional calibration components, which fail to capture the intrinsic relationship between the model and the prediction confidence, resulting in limited theoretical guarantees and increased computational overhead. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet efficient graph calibration method. We establish a unified theoretical framework revealing that model confidence is jointly governed by class-centroid-level and node-level calibration at the final layer. Based on this insight, we theoretically show that reducing the weight decay of the final-layer parameters alleviates GNN under-confidence by acting on the class-centroid level, while node-level calibration acts as a finer-grained complement to class-centroid-level calibration, which encourages each test node to be closer to its predicted class prototype in the final-layer representations. Extensive experiments validate the superiority of our method. The code is released at https://github.com/huangJC0429/SCAR.

cs.LG↗