Yufeng Du

Ganqu Cui, Yufeng Du, Cheng Yang et al.

The recent emergence of contrastive learning approaches facilitates the application on graph representation learning (GRL), introducing graph contrastive learning (GCL) into the literature. These methods contrast semantically similar and dissimilar sample pairs to encode the semantics into node or graph embeddings. However, most existing works only performed \textbf{model-level} evaluation, and did not explore the combination space of modules for more comprehensive and systematic studies. For effective \textbf{module-level} evaluation, we propose a framework that decomposes GCL models into four modules: (1) a \textbf{sampler} to generate anchor, positive and negative data samples (nodes or graphs); (2) an \textbf{encoder} and a \textbf{readout} function to get sample embeddings; (3) a \textbf{discriminator} to score each sample pair (anchor-positive and anchor-negative); and (4) an \textbf{estimator} to define the loss function. Based on this framework, we conduct controlled experiments over a wide range of architectural designs and hyperparameter settings on node and graph classification tasks. Specifically, we manage to quantify the impact of a single module, investigate the interaction between modules, and compare the overall performance with current model architectures. Our key findings include a set of module-level guidelines for GCL, e.g., simple samplers from LINE and DeepWalk are strong and robust; an MLP encoder associated with Sum readout could achieve competitive performance on graph classification. Finally, we release our implementations and results as OpenGCL, a modularized toolkit that allows convenient reproduction, standard model and module evaluation, and easy extension. OpenGCL is available at \url{https://github.com/thunlp/OpenGCL}.

Franck Cappello, Sandeep Madireddy, Robert Underwood et al.

Recent advancements have positioned AI, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), as transformative tools for scientific research, capable of addressing complex tasks that require reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Their exceptional capabilities suggest their potential as scientific research assistants but also highlight the need for holistic, rigorous, and domain-specific evaluation to assess effectiveness in real-world scientific applications. This paper describes a multifaceted methodology for Evaluating AI models as scientific Research Assistants (EAIRA) developed at Argonne National Laboratory. This methodology incorporates four primary classes of evaluations. 1) Multiple Choice Questions to assess factual recall; 2) Open Response to evaluate advanced reasoning and problem-solving skills; 3) Lab-Style Experiments involving detailed analysis of capabilities as research assistants in controlled environments; and 4) Field-Style Experiments to capture researcher-LLM interactions at scale in a wide range of scientific domains and applications. These complementary methods enable a comprehensive analysis of LLM strengths and weaknesses with respect to their scientific knowledge, reasoning abilities, and adaptability. Recognizing the rapid pace of LLM advancements, we designed the methodology to evolve and adapt so as to ensure its continued relevance and applicability. This paper describes the methodology state at the end of February 2025. Although developed within a subset of scientific domains, the methodology is designed to be generalizable to a wide range of scientific domains.