PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Rethinking the Effectiveness of Graph Classification Datasets in Benchmarks for Assessing GNNs

Zhengdao Li, Yong Cao, Kefan Shuai, Yiming Miao, Kai Hwang

datasets & benchmarksgraph classification benchmarkgraph neural networkseffectiveness of dataset
40.70100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
49.10100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
32.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.37)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Graph classification benchmarks, vital for assessing and developing graph neural network (GNN) models, have recently been scrutinized, as simple methods like MLPs have demonstrated comparable performance on certain datasets. This leads to an important question: Do these benchmarks effectively distinguish the advancements of GNNs over other methodologies? If so, how do we quantitatively measure this effectiveness? In response, we propose an empirical protocol based on a fair benchmarking framework to investigate the performance discrepancy between simple methods and GNNs. We further propose a novel metric to quantify the effectiveness of a dataset by utilizing the performance gaps and considering dataset complexity. Through extensive testing across 16 real-world datasets, we found our metric to align with existing studies and intuitive assumptions. Finally, to explore the causes behind the low effectiveness, we investigated the relationship between intrinsic graph properties and task labels and developed a novel technique for generating more synthetic datasets that can precisely control these correlations. Our findings shed light on the current understanding of benchmark datasets, and our new platform backed by an effectiveness validation protocol could fuel the future evolution of graph classification benchmarks.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 42)