Graph-oriented Instruction Tuning of Large Language Models for Generic Graph Mining

Yanchao Tan, H. Lv, Pengxiang Zhan, Shiping Wang, Carl Yang

Main figure for Graph-oriented Instruction Tuning of Large Language Models for Generic Graph Mining

Abstract

Graphs with abundant attributes are essential in modeling interconnected entities and enhancing predictions across various real-world applications. Traditional Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) often require re-training for different graph tasks and datasets. Although the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced new paradigms in natural language processing, their potential for generic graph mining—training a single model to simultaneously handle diverse tasks and datasets—remains under-explored. To this end, our novel framework MuseGraph, seamlessly integrates the strengths of GNNs and LLMs into one foundation model for graph mining across tasks and datasets. This framework first features a compact graph description to encapsulate key graph information within language token limitations. Then, we propose a diverse instruction generation mechanism with Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-based instruction packages to distill the reasoning capabilities from advanced LLMs like GPT-4. Finally, we design a graph-aware instruction tuning strategy to facilitate mutual enhancement across multiple tasks and datasets while preventing catastrophic forgetting of LLMs' generative abilities. Our experimental results demonstrate significant improvements in five graph tasks and ten datasets, showcasing the potential of our MuseGraph in enhancing the accuracy of graph-oriented downstream tasks while improving the generation abilities of LLMs.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 5 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

#ModelMacro-F1 ↑Paper
1
ConCH
0.6475
2
HetGNN
0.6292
3
GC-HGNN
0.6247 ±0.0042
5
HGT
actual #5 vs paper #38 33 places worse
0.6176
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #38 33 places worse
paper 0.2933
7
GCN
actual #7 vs paper #38 31 places worse
0.6090
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #38 31 places worse
paper 0.2935
12
MuseGraph (LLaMA3-8B)
0.5962
This paper
22
HINormer
actual #22 vs paper #27 5 places worse
0.5218 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #27 5 places worse
paper 0.4887
paper 0.4887 Δ at pub 0.0331
25
GAT
actual #25 vs paper #36 11 places worse
0.5109
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #36 11 places worse
paper 0.4040
31
R-GCN
0.4703
This paper
34
GraphSAGE
actual #34 vs paper #39 5 places worse
0.4417 ±0.0114
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #39 5 places worse
paper 0.2759
paper 0.2759 Δ at pub 0.1658
37
OFA
0.3475
This paper
40
GHGRL
0.2615
This paper
41
GPT-3.5
0.2534
This paper
42
gpt-4
0.2419
This paper
44
All-In-One
0.2104
This paper
45
RevGNN
0.2085
This paper
46
Qwen2-7B-Instruct
0.1347
This paper
47
HiGPT
0.0702
This paper
48
GraphGPT
0.0614
This paper
49
Llama3-8B
0.0376
This paper
50
InstructGLM
0.0238
This paper
51
LLama2-7B
0.0178
This paper
52
LLaMA1-7B
0.0172
This paper
53
Baichuan2-7B-Base
0.0162
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)