Graph attention normalizes neighborhood scores with softmax, the maximum-entropy choice under Shannon statistics. But homophilic and heterophilic graphs want different attention shapes, and one fixed normalization cannot serve both. We propose \textbf{LTGA} (\textbf{L}earnable \textbf{T}sallis \textbf{G}raph \textbf{A}ttention), a graph attention layer whose Tsallis entropic index $q$ is learned jointly with the weights, interpolating continuously between heavy-tailed ($q\!<\!1$), softmax ($q\!=\!1$) and compact-support ($q\!>\!1$) attention at four granularities from a global scalar to a per-edge index, under a bounded reparameterization that starts every model at the GAT baseline. Across eight benchmarks at ten seeds, LTGA-Edge takes the best average rank ($2.75$), but the omnibus test does not reject ($p\!=\!0.199$) and learning $q$ does not beat searching it: a validation-tuned frozen grid reaches $61.4\%$, tuned $\alpha$-entmax $62.2\%$ and a capacity-matched $q\!\equiv\!1$ control $62.0\%$, against $61.7\%$ for LTGA-Edge. What the learned index buys is one run instead of a grid, and an interpretable mechanism: where $q$ leaves $1$, it prunes $42\%$ of attention coefficients to exactly zero, and those edges are selectively the wrong ones, restoring them costs $7.1$ points, while random pruning at the same rate costs $13.0$ more. Project page: https://kleyt0n.github.io/ltga
Objectives: To determine whether zero-shot prompting of a large language model (LLM) is sufficient to detect shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors in real clinical encounters, and whether supervised learning adds value under patient-grouped, nested evaluation. Methods: We analyzed 21 audio-recorded outpatient surgical decision encounters (19 unique patients; 7,566 utterance segments; ~6.1 hours) between families of children with multiple long-term conditions and their surgical providers. Trained coders labeled segments for 12 SDM behaviors (human-human macro Cohen's kappa = 0.695). We compared a zero-shot local LLM (Qwen 2.5 32B), a supervised classifier over frozen sentence embeddings, and their logistic stack, under patient-grouped outer folds with inner cross-fitted thresholds and patient-resampled confidence intervals. Results: The zero-shot LLM reached macro kappa = 0.139 (95% CI 0.111-0.164). The supervised classifier reached kappa = 0.227 (0.186-0.262), a paired improvement of 0.088 (0.051-0.119). A logistic stack of the two reached kappa = 0.242 (0.198-0.284). We identified multiple corpus-specific leakage paths, including grouping sibling recordings separately and allowing labels from an outer held-out patient to enter few-shot exemplars used while fitting downstream models. Conclusion: Zero-shot prompting alone is not sufficient to measure SDM behavior as reliably as a small supervised model, and patient-level grouping alone does not prevent leakage when labeled prompt exemplars are precomputed outside the outer evaluation loop. Reported performance is sensitive to the unit of data splitting and to where labeled exemplars enter the pipeline. External validation is needed before these findings generalize beyond this population, model, prompt, and codebook.
Bernardo Modenesi, Jody L. Lin, Kimberly A. Kaphingst et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
