Graph Agent: Explicit Reasoning Agent for Graphs

Qinyong Wang, Zhenxiang Gao, Rong Xu

Main figure for Graph Agent: Explicit Reasoning Agent for Graphs

Abstract

Graph embedding methods such as Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Graph Transformers have contributed to the development of graph reasoning algorithms for various tasks on knowledge graphs. However, the lack of interpretability and explainability of graph embedding methods has limited their applicability in scenarios requiring explicit reasoning. In this paper, we introduce the Graph Agent (GA), an intelligent agent methodology of leveraging large language models (LLMs), inductive-deductive reasoning modules, and long-term memory for knowledge graph reasoning tasks. GA integrates aspects of symbolic reasoning and existing graph embedding methods to provide an innovative approach for complex graph reasoning tasks. By converting graph structures into textual data, GA enables LLMs to process, reason, and provide predictions alongside human-interpretable explanations. The effectiveness of the GA was evaluated on node classification and link prediction tasks. Results showed that GA reached state-of-the-art performance, demonstrating accuracy of 90.65\

Proposed method: GA

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
14
TAPE
actual #14 vs paper #32 18 places worse
0.9119 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #32 18 places worse
paper 0.8930
15
InstructGLM
0.9077
This paper
18
GA
0.9065
This paper
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #111 90 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #111 90 places worse
paper 0.8778
paper 0.8778 Δ at pub 0.0026 Δ today 0.0226
25
ACM-GCN
0.8975
This paper
27
ACM-Snowball-3
actual #27 vs paper #27
0.8960 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #27
paper 0.8959

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8959 Δ today 0.0001
40
RevGAT
0.8911
This paper
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #742 698 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #742 698 places worse
paper 0.7670
57
CoarFormer
0.8869
This paper
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #167 26 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #167 26 places worse
paper 0.8658

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8658 Δ at pub 0.0032 Δ today 0.0050
171
GT
0.8642
This paper
456
Graphormer
actual #456 vs paper #636 180 places worse
0.8262 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #456 vs paper #636 180 places worse
paper 0.8041
724
MLP
0.7768
833
GraphText-ICL
0.6830
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere