IJCAI 2024

Efficient Tuning and Inference for Large Language Models on Textual Graphs

Yun Zhu, Yaoke Wang, Haizhou Shi, Siliang Tang

Main figure for Efficient Tuning and Inference for Large Language Models on Textual Graphs

Abstract

Rich textual and topological information of textual graphs need to be modeled in real-world applications such as webpages, e-commerce, and academic articles. Practitioners have been long following the path of adopting a shallow text encoder and a subsequent graph neural network (GNN) to solve this problem. In light of recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), it is apparent that integrating LLMs for enhanced textual encoding can substantially improve the performance of textual graphs. Nevertheless, the efficiency of these methods poses a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose ENGINE, a parameter- and memory-efficient fine-tuning method for textual graphs with an LLM encoder. The key insight is to combine the LLMs and GNNs through a tunable side structure, which significantly reduces the training complexity without impairing the joint model's capacity. Extensive experiments on textual graphs demonstrate our method's effectiveness by achieving the best model performance, meanwhile having the lowest training cost compared to previous methods. Moreover, we introduce two variants with caching and dynamic early exit to further enhance training and inference speed. Specifically, caching accelerates ENGINE's training by 12x, and dynamic early exit achieves up to 5x faster inference with a negligible performance drop (at maximum 1.17\

Proposed method: ENGINE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 14 baseline values 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
11
ENGINE
0.9148 ±0.0032
This paper
14
TAPE
actual #14 vs paper #64 50 places worse
0.9119 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #64 50 places worse
paper 0.8852 ±0.0112
paper 0.8852 ±0.0112 Δ at pub 0.0078 Δ today 0.0267
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #149 128 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #149 128 places worse
paper 0.8690 ±0.0151
paper 0.8690 ±0.0151 Δ at pub 0.0314
39
SAGE
actual #39 vs paper #196 157 places worse
0.8573 ±0.0065
actual #39 vs paper #196 157 places worse
paper 0.8573 ±0.0065
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #196 152 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #196 152 places worse
paper 0.8573 ±0.0065
paper 0.8573 ±0.0065 Δ at pub 0.0317 Δ today 0.0324
68
NodeFormer
actual #68 vs paper #68
0.8848 ±0.0033
actual #68 vs paper #68
paper 0.8848 ±0.0033
paper 0.8848 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0508
93
SimTEG
0.8804 ±0.0136
This paper
141
GraphSAGE
0.8708 ±0.0085
200
GLEM
0.8560 ±0.0009
This paper
203
GIANT
0.8552 ±0.0074
This paper
635
GraphFormers
0.8044 ±0.0189
This paper
653
BERT
0.8015 ±0.0167
This paper
660
LoRA
0.7995 ±0.0044
This paper
701
SentenceBert
0.7882 ±0.0139
This paper
721
DeBERTa
0.7779 ±0.0226
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #783 59 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #783 59 places worse
paper 0.7432 ±0.0275

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7432 ±0.0275 Δ at pub 0.0336
727
LST
0.7760 ±0.0076
This paper
752
IA3
0.7643 ±0.0129
This paper
791
Prompt Tuning
0.7373 ±0.0205
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #215 180 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #215 180 places worse
paper 0.7423 ±0.0178
paper 0.7423 ±0.0178 Δ at pub 0.0657
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #334 290 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #334 290 places worse
paper 0.7298 ±0.0132
paper 0.7298 ±0.0132 Δ at pub 0.0645 Δ today 0.0735
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
76
NodeFormer
actual #76 vs paper #147 71 places worse
0.7574 ±0.0054
actual #76 vs paper #147 71 places worse
paper 0.7574 ±0.0054
paper 0.7574 ±0.0054 Δ at pub 0.0274 Δ today 0.0282
81
ENGINE
0.7846 ±0.0049
This paper
106
SimTEG
0.7722 ±0.0143
This paper
143
GLEM
0.7589 ±0.0053
This paper
179
LST
0.7505 ±0.0136
This paper
259
SAGE
actual #259 vs paper #259
0.7361 ±0.0190
actual #259 vs paper #259
paper 0.7361 ±0.0190

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7361 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0190
260
LoRA
0.7361 ±0.0189
This paper
313
BERT
0.7317 ±0.0175
This paper
316
DeBERTa
0.7313 ±0.0194
This paper
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #549 199 places worse
0.7289 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #549 199 places worse
paper 0.7113 ±0.0137
paper 0.7113 ±0.0137 Δ at pub 0.0077 Δ today 0.0176
358
SentenceBert
0.7279 ±0.0171
This paper
423
GIANT
0.7238 ±0.0083
This paper
535
GraphFormers
0.7128 ±0.0117
This paper
555
IA3
0.7107 ±0.0124
This paper
634
Prompt Tuning
0.6962 ±0.0214
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #215 214 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #215 214 places worse
paper 0.7633 ±0.0081
paper 0.7633 ±0.0081 Δ at pub 0.1669
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
actual #9 vs paper #110 101 places worse
0.8771
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #110 101 places worse
paper 0.7956 ±0.0022
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #169 138 places worse
0.7821 ±0.0066
actual #31 vs paper #169 138 places worse
paper 0.7821 ±0.0066

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7821 ±0.0066 Δ at pub 0.0051 Δ today 0.0712
54
GIN
0.8303 ±0.0021
68
ENGINE
0.8156 ±0.0097
This paper
74
NodeFormer
actual #74 vs paper #224 150 places worse
0.8103 ±0.0094
best reported
actual #74 vs paper #224 150 places worse
paper 0.7547 ±0.0046
paper 0.7547 ±0.0046 Δ today 0.0556
131
SimTEG
0.7907 ±0.0065
This paper
141
GLEM
0.7892 ±0.0019
This paper
142
LoRA
0.7891 ±0.0126
This paper
165
BERT
0.7833 ±0.0043
This paper
177
SentenceBert
0.7792 ±0.0007
This paper
189
LST
0.7759 ±0.0070
This paper
220
GIANT
0.7581 ±0.0026
This paper
231
DeBERTa
0.7511 ±0.0197
This paper
237
MLP
actual #237 vs paper #273 36 places worse
0.7469 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #237 vs paper #273 36 places worse
paper 0.6841 ±0.0065
paper 0.6841 ±0.0065 Δ at pub 0.0357 Δ today 0.0628
252
GraphFormers
0.7207 ±0.0031
This paper
266
IA3
0.7008 ±0.0126
This paper
283
Prompt Tuning
0.6714 ±0.0150
This paper

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
actual #4 vs paper #338 334 places worse
0.8933
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #338 334 places worse
paper 0.6975 ±0.0010
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #337 331 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #337 331 places worse
paper 0.6986 ±0.0014
9
GAT
actual #9 vs paper #340 331 places worse
0.8829
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #340 331 places worse
paper 0.6957 ±0.0018
15
GLEM
actual #15 vs paper #305 290 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #305 290 places worse
paper 0.7377 ±0.0012
paper 0.7377 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.1359
39
SimTEG
actual #39 vs paper #286 247 places worse
0.8540 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #286 247 places worse
paper 0.7451 ±0.0149
paper 0.7451 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.1089
66
NodeFormer
actual #66 vs paper #346 280 places worse
0.8372
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #346 280 places worse
paper 0.6726 ±0.0071
paper 0.6726 ±0.0071 Δ today 0.1646
83
GraphSAGE
0.8287
90
TAPE
actual #90 vs paper #153 63 places worse
0.8234 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #90 vs paper #153 63 places worse
paper 0.7976 ±0.0011
137
GIANT
actual #137 vs paper #294 157 places worse
0.8049 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #137 vs paper #294 157 places worse
paper 0.7406 ±0.0042
paper 0.7406 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0643
145
ENGINE
0.8005 ±0.0045
This paper
223
BERT
actual #223 vs paper #242 19 places worse
0.7764 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #242 19 places worse
paper 0.7601 ±0.0014
paper 0.7601 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0163
242
LST
0.7610 ±0.0079
This paper
246
IA3
0.7582 ±0.0010
This paper
253
DeBERTa
0.7561 ±0.0028
This paper
259
LoRA
0.7550 ±0.0005
This paper
267
SentenceBert
0.7507 ±0.0013
This paper
287
Prompt Tuning
0.7450 ±0.0099
This paper
344
GraphFormers
0.6815 ±0.0076
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #379 28 places worse
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #379 28 places worse
paper 0.5666 ±0.0010
paper 0.5666 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.2752 Δ today 0.0939
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere