aiqbench analysis
This research demonstrates that in graph-to-table systems, the performance of individual components like encoders cannot be evaluated in isolation, as their effectiveness is jointly dependent on the context constructor and tabular decoder. The study reveals significant interactions between design choices across various knowledge graphs and models, cautioning against drawing universal conclusions without accounting for the entire pipeline architecture. These findings are critical for researchers aiming to optimize relational generalization by understanding how specific architectural elements influence one another.
Graph-to-Table Interfaces Control Relational Generalisation
arXiv:2610.25993v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Graph-to-table systems combine three design choices: an encoder that maps relational evidence to feature rows, a context constructor that selects labelled examples, and a tabular decoder. We investigate whether these components can be evaluated independently through matched comparisons that change one component while holding the rest of the pipeline and the evaluation constant. Across logistic regression, CATBOOST, and TABPFN-3 on CLUTRR, 57 GraphLog worlds, and 57 knowledge graphs, we show that conclusions about one component can change when the others change. On CLUTRR, absolute positional encodings maintain all distinctions among the evaluated queries and fit the short-path setting nearly perfectly; yet, they generalise worse than relation-count features because the supported prefix acts as a shortcut that breaks down on longer paths. On GraphLog, encoder preference depends on the decoder, while the relation-count representation degrades as CatBoost tree depth increases. Across different knowledge graphs, adding the frozen ULTRA score to local features is consistently useful, whereas adding local features to the score has a smaller and less stable effect. A pointwise TABPFN-3 readout using the full encoder underperforms native ULTRA on 48 of 57 datasets. These results show that encoder assessment depends jointly on context and decoder, while panel-level conclusions can also depend on evaluation and aggregation protocols.
Abstract:Graph-to-table systems combine three design choices: an encoder that maps relational evidence to feature rows, a context constructor that selects labelled examples, and a tabular decoder. We investigate whether these components can be evaluated independently through matched comparisons that change one component while holding the rest of the pipeline and the evaluation constant. Across logistic regression, CATBOOST, and TABPFN-3 on CLUTRR, 57 GraphLog worlds, and 57 knowledge graphs, we show that conclusions about one component can change when the others change. On CLUTRR, absolute positional encodings maintain all distinctions among the evaluated queries and fit the short-path setting nearly perfectly; yet, they generalise worse than relation-count features because the supported prefix acts as a shortcut that breaks down on longer paths. On GraphLog, encoder preference depends on the decoder, while the relation-count representation degrades as CatBoost tree depth increases. Across different knowledge graphs, adding the frozen ULTRA score to local features is consistently useful, whereas adding local features to the score has a smaller and less stable effect. A pointwise TABPFN-3 readout using the full encoder underperforms native ULTRA on 48 of 57 datasets. These results show that encoder assessment depends jointly on context and decoder, while panel-level conclusions can also depend on evaluation and aggregation protocols.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.25993 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.25993v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.25993 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 301 words