Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

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

Summary

A new arXiv paper compares the GraphLLM node-classification results reported by three recent studies against inexpensive baselines tuned with validation-only selection, finding median gaps of just 2.3 to 2.8 percentage points. The author also documents several evaluation risks in the released code and papers, including test-set hyperparameter selection, test-pool labels leaking into training, undisclosed reuse of baseline numbers, and a text-label misalignment in a Cora loader.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Michal Podstawski
Big Claims, Small Margins: Do Reported GraphLLM Gains Survive Simple Baselines?
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 20 Oct 2026]

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

View a PDF of the paper titled Big Claims, Small Margins: Do Reported GraphLLM Gains Survive Simple Baselines?, by Michal Podstawski

View PDF HTML (experimental)

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.

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.28714 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.28714v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.28714

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Michal Podstawski [view email] [v1] Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:48:59 UTC (50 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Big Claims, Small Margins: Do Reported GraphLLM Gains Survive Simple Baselines?, by Michal Podstawski

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • Correct & Smooth on TF-IDF features trails the best reported LLM-based result by a median of 2.3 percentage points, and an MLP on frozen e5-large-v2 embeddings by 2.8 points.
  • Correct & Smooth stays within 3 points of the reference on 15 of 24 tasks, yet the reference remains significantly higher on 12 of 22 testable tasks, so some gains are real.
  • The paper documents evaluation risks in released code, including test-set checkpoint selection, training on test-pool node labels, unreported reused baselines, and a misaligned Cora text-label loader.
  • Reports of the same method on the same split vary by as much as 12.5 points across papers whose configurations are not shown to match.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.