Unleashing the Potential of Text-attributed Graphs: Automatic Relation Decomposition via Large Language Models

Hyunjin Seo, Taewon Kim, J. Yang, Eunho Yang

Main figure for Unleashing the Potential of Text-attributed Graphs: Automatic Relation Decomposition via Large Language Models

Abstract

Recent advancements in text-attributed graphs (TAGs) have significantly improved the quality of node features by using the textual modeling capabilities of language models. Despite this success, utilizing text attributes to enhance the predefined graph structure remains largely unexplored. Our extensive analysis reveals that conventional edges on TAGs, treated as a single relation (, hyperlinks) in previous literature, actually encompass mixed semantics (, "advised by" and "participates in"). This simplification hinders the representation learning process of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) on downstream tasks, even when integrated with advanced node features. In contrast, we discover that decomposing these edges into distinct semantic relations significantly enhances the performance of GNNs. Despite this, manually identifying and labeling of edges to corresponding semantic relations is labor-intensive, often requiring domain expertise. To this end, we introduce (Relation-oriented Semantic Edge-decomposition), a novel framework that leverages the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to decompose the graph structure by analyzing raw text attributes - in a fully automated manner. operates in two stages: (1) identifying meaningful relations using an LLM-based generator and discriminator, and (2) categorizing each edge into corresponding relations by analyzing textual contents associated with connected nodes via an LLM-based decomposer. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model-agnostic framework significantly enhances node classification performance across various datasets, with improvements of up to 16\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 18 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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
7
RGCN + RSE (70b)
0.9177 ±0.0038
This paper
12
SeHGNN + RSE (8b)
0.9138 ±0.0050
This paper
19
HAN + RSE (70b)
0.9031 ±0.0038
This paper
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #91 70 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #91 70 places worse
paper 0.8805 ±0.0040
paper 0.8805 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0199
30
UniMP + RSE (70b)
0.8952 ±0.0041
This paper
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #111 67 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #111 67 places worse
paper 0.8774 ±0.0038
paper 0.8774 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0116 Δ today 0.0123
55
JKNet
actual #55 vs paper #136 81 places worse
0.8870
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #136 81 places worse
paper 0.8716 ±0.0041
paper 0.8716 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0154
63
GIN + RSE (8b)
0.8855 ±0.0030
This paper
95
RGCN
actual #95 vs paper #95
0.8801 ±0.0047
actual #95 vs paper #95
paper 0.8801 ±0.0047
paper 0.8801 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0167
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #93 75 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #93 75 places worse
paper 0.8932 ±0.0011
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #124 104 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #124 104 places worse
paper 0.8864 ±0.0011
24
JKNet
actual #24 vs paper #83 59 places worse
0.9160
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #83 59 places worse
paper 0.8968 ±0.0014
paper 0.8968 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0192
57
UniMP + RSE (70b)
0.9037 ±0.0018
This paper
63
RGCN + RSE (8b)
0.9023 ±0.0010
This paper
67
HAN + RSE (8b)
0.9009 ±0.0015
This paper
77
SeHGNN + RSE (8b)
0.8993 ±0.0018
This paper
84
GIN + RSE (8b)
0.8968 ±0.0015
This paper
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #57 56 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #57 56 places worse
paper 0.8258 ±0.0027
paper 0.8258 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.1044
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
This paper
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
6
RSE + SeHGNN (70b)
0.8796 ±0.0020
This paper
9
SAGE
0.8771
10
RSE + UniMP (70b)
0.8769 ±0.0018
This paper
13
RSE + HAN (70b)
0.8749 ±0.0015
This paper
23
JKNet
actual #23 vs paper #55 32 places worse
0.8629
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #55 32 places worse
paper 0.8294 ±0.0028
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #56 25 places worse
0.8279 ±0.0016
actual #31 vs paper #56 25 places worse
paper 0.8279 ±0.0016
38
UniMP
0.8429 ±0.0023
This paper
49
HAN
0.8332 ±0.0026
This paper
54
GIN
actual #54 vs paper #54
0.8303 ±0.0021
actual #54 vs paper #54
paper 0.8303 ±0.0021
paper 0.8303 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0713
59
SeHGNN
0.8253 ±0.0019
This paper
64
RGCN
0.8202 ±0.0023
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #425 214 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #425 214 places worse
paper 0.6686 ±0.0148
paper 0.6686 ±0.0148 Δ at pub 0.1314 Δ today 0.1476
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #460 203 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #460 203 places worse
paper 0.6294 ±0.0249
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.6294 ±0.0249 Δ at pub 0.1546 Δ today 0.1639
282
SeHGNN + TAGs (70b)
0.7745 ±0.0115
This paper
297
UniMP + TAGs (70b)
0.7647 ±0.0173
This paper
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #407 81 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #407 81 places worse
paper 0.6863 ±0.0173
328
GIN + TAGs (8b)
0.7451 ±0.0213
This paper
345
RGCN + TAGs (70b)
0.7353 ±0.0142
This paper
357
HAN + TAGs (8b)
0.7294 ±0.0164
This paper
378
SeHGNN
0.7137 ±0.0128
This paper
380
UniMP
0.7118 ±0.0200
This paper
392
JKNet
actual #392 vs paper #480 88 places worse
0.7000 ±0.0549
best reported
actual #392 vs paper #480 88 places worse
paper 0.6157 ±0.0292
paper 0.6157 ±0.0292 Δ at pub 0.0221 Δ today 0.0843
402
HAN
0.6882 ±0.0212
This paper
434
RGCN
0.6588 ±0.0186
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #418 260 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #418 260 places worse
paper 0.5700 ±0.0156
paper 0.5700 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.2490
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #505 335 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #505 335 places worse
paper 0.4820 ±0.0218
paper 0.4820 ±0.0218 Δ at pub 0.3195 Δ today 0.3262
201
GIN
actual #201 vs paper #334 133 places worse
0.7800 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #334 133 places worse
paper 0.6460 ±0.0208
241
JKNet
actual #241 vs paper #424 183 places worse
0.7443 ±0.0830
best reported
actual #241 vs paper #424 183 places worse
paper 0.5600 ±0.0152
paper 0.5600 ±0.0152 Δ at pub 0.0508 Δ today 0.1843
298
RSE (8b) with GIN
0.6820 ±0.0148
This paper
302
RSE (8b) with UniMP
0.6780 ±0.0213
This paper
303
RSE (70b) with UniMP
0.6780 ±0.0178
This paper
336
RSE (70b) with SeHGNN
0.6460 ±0.0212
This paper
345
RSE (70b) with RGCN
0.6380 ±0.0186
This paper
349
UniMP
0.6340 ±0.0179
This paper
355
RSE (70b) with HAN
0.6280 ±0.0186
This paper
358
RSE (8b) with SeHGNN
0.6200 ±0.0141
This paper
364
RSE (8b) with RGCN
0.6140 ±0.0206
This paper
376
SeHGNN
0.6000 ±0.0130
This paper
377
RSE (8b) with HAN
0.6000 ±0.0147
This paper
408
RGCN
0.5760 ±0.0178
This paper
425
HAN
0.5600 ±0.0167
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
0.9010 ±0.0350
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
53
GAT
actual #53 vs paper #183 130 places worse
0.8430 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #183 130 places worse
paper 0.5625 ±0.0229
paper 0.5625 ±0.0229 Δ at pub 0.2805
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #205 142 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #205 142 places worse
paper 0.5156 ±0.0179
paper 0.5156 ±0.0179 Δ at pub 0.3154
69
GraphSAGE
0.8118 ±0.0556
72
UniMP + RSE (70b)
0.8094 ±0.0112
This paper
82
GIN + RSE (8b)
0.7922 ±0.0119
This paper
86
GIN
actual #86 vs paper #114 28 places worse
0.7328 ±0.0206
actual #86 vs paper #114 28 places worse
paper 0.7328 ±0.0206
paper 0.7328 ±0.0206 Δ at pub 0.2230 Δ today 0.0572
88
UniMP
0.7844 ±0.0150
This paper
94
SeHGNN + RSE (8b)
0.7734 ±0.0104
This paper
99
RGCN + RSE (70b)
0.7531 ±0.0142
This paper
108
HAN + RSE (70b)
0.7438 ±0.0149
This paper
148
SeHGNN
0.6531 ±0.0195
This paper
166
JKNet
actual #166 vs paper #175 9 places worse
0.6098 ±0.0297
best reported
actual #166 vs paper #175 9 places worse
paper 0.5750 ±0.0119

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5750 ±0.0119 Δ at pub 0.0348
172
RGCN
0.5922 ±0.0170
This paper
173
HAN
0.5828 ±0.0199
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

IMDB

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is Micro-F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
BERT-Base, Uncased
0.9190
2
TAGs (70b)
0.7157 ±0.0042
This paper
3
UniMP
0.6998 ±0.0058
This paper
4
GIN
0.6759 ±0.0041
This paper
11
SeHGNN
actual #11 vs paper #23 12 places worse
0.6598 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #23 12 places worse
paper 0.6272 ±0.0052
paper 0.6272 ±0.0052 Δ at pub 0.0326
15
RGCN
actual #15 vs paper #23 8 places worse
0.6296 ±0.0044
actual #15 vs paper #23 8 places worse
paper 0.6296 ±0.0044
19
HAN
actual #19 vs paper #22 3 places worse
0.6463 ±0.0058
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #22 3 places worse
paper 0.6324 ±0.0054
20
GAT
0.6439 ±0.0044
This paper
22
GCN
0.6404 ±0.0043
This paper
23
JKNet
0.6300 ±0.0054
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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