Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
Tsinghua AIECNUUniversity of Electronic Science and TechnologyWestern UniversityXiaohongshuZJUJun 4, 2026arXiv:2606.06397This paper critiques the prevalent use of flat leaderboards in evaluating relational learning models, revealing that such methods obscure geometry-dependent performance variations. By introducing a curvature-stratified evaluation framework, the authors demonstrate that model effectiveness is significantly influenced by the intrinsic geometry of datasets, leading to varying model rankings across different curvature regimes. Their findings indicate that conventional aggregated metrics can mislead conclusions about model generalization and that geometry-aligned GNNs may outperform Graph Foundation Models in certain contexts.
Geometry dictates model performance in relational learning, with rankings shifting dramatically across curvature regimes, challenging the reliability of standard evaluation practices.
Current evaluation practices in relational learning rely heavily on flat leaderboards that average performance across heterogeneous datasets, implicitly assuming a uniform underlying structure. We show that this assumption introduces systematic bias: it obscures geometry-dependent performance variations and can lead to misleading conclusions about model generalization. In this work, we identify intrinsic geometry as a key latent factor governing model effectiveness. We demonstrate that conventional aggregated metrics mask critical performance trade-offs that only become visible when datasets are stratified by their geometric properties. To address this issue, we introduce a curvature-stratified evaluation framework that partitions datasets into positive, negative, and near-zero curvature regimes. Our benchmark evaluates 18 representative models including Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), Graph Foundation Models (GFMs), and tabular learning methods across 14 datasets. We find that model rankings are highly stable within each curvature regime but shift significantly across regimes, indicating that performance is fundamentally geometry-dependent rather than universally transferable. Notably, we identify regimes where GFMs offer diminishing returns compared to geometry-aligned GNNs. Based on these findings, we propose a geometry-aware evaluation protocol that yields more reliable and interpretable comparisons than standard aggregated benchmarks. We release all code, curvature-stratified dataset splits, and evaluation tools to support reproducible and rigorous assessment of future relational learning methods. Code and datasets are provided in our project homepage: https://sirbabbage.github.io/CurvBench_HOME/.
