All Against Some: Efficient Integration of Large Language Models for Message Passing in Graph Neural Networks

A. Jaiswal, Nurendra Choudhary, Ravinarayana Adkathimar, M. P. Alagappan, G. Hiranandani, Ying Ding, Zhangyang Wang, E-Wen Huang, Karthik Subbian

Main figure for All Against Some: Efficient Integration of Large Language Models for Message Passing in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have attracted immense attention in the past decade due to their numerous real-world applications built around graph-structured data. On the other hand, Large Language Models (LLMs) with extensive pretrained knowledge and powerful semantic comprehension abilities have recently shown a remarkable ability to benefit applications using vision and text data. In this paper, we investigate how LLMs can be leveraged in a computationally efficient fashion to benefit rich graph-structured data, a modality relatively unexplored in LLM literature. Prior works in this area exploit LLMs to augment every node features in an ad-hoc fashion (not scalable for large graphs), use natural language to describe the complex structural information of graphs, or perform computationally expensive finetuning of LLMs in conjunction with GNNs. We propose E-LLaGNN (Efficient LLMs augmented GNNs), a framework with an that enriches message passing procedure of graph learning by enhancing a limited fraction of nodes from the graph. More specifically, E-LLaGNN relies on sampling high-quality neighborhoods using LLMs, followed by on-demand neighborhood feature enhancement using diverse prompts from our prompt catalog, and finally information aggregation using message passing from conventional GNN architectures. We explore several heuristics-based active node selection strategies to limit the computational and memory footprint of LLMs when handling millions of nodes. Through extensive experiments & ablation on popular graph benchmarks of varying scales (Cora, PubMed, ArXiv, & Products), we illustrate the effectiveness of our E-LLaGNN framework and reveal many interesting capabilities such as improved gradient flow in deep GNNs, LLM-free inference ability etc.

Proposed method: E-LLaGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 8 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
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #599 578 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #599 578 places worse
paper 0.8110
paper 0.8110 Δ at pub 0.0894
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #536 492 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #536 492 places worse
paper 0.8190
45
GCNII
actual #45 vs paper #278 233 places worse
0.8893 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #278 233 places worse
paper 0.8420
best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023)
paper 0.8420 Δ at pub 0.0473 Δ today 0.0473
55
JKNet
actual #55 vs paper #688 633 places worse
0.8870
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #688 633 places worse
paper 0.7920
paper 0.7920 Δ at pub 0.0950
115
E-LLaGNN
0.8760 ±0.0120
This paper
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #686 463 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #686 463 places worse
paper 0.7930

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7930 Δ at pub 0.0579
691
IncGCN
0.7920
This paper
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 #158 140 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #158 140 places worse
paper 0.8800
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #135 115 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #135 115 places worse
paper 0.8840
24
JKNet
actual #24 vs paper #121 97 places worse
0.9160
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #121 97 places worse
paper 0.8870
paper 0.8870 Δ at pub 0.0290
59
E-LLaGNN
0.9030 ±0.0010
This paper
58
GCNII
actual #58 vs paper #116 58 places worse
0.9030 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #116 58 places worse
paper 0.8880
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
132
IncGCN
0.8850
This paper
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #158 17 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #158 17 places worse
paper 0.8800

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8800 Δ at pub 0.0032
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #134 51 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #134 51 places worse
paper 0.8061 ±0.0016
99
E-LLaGNN
0.8201 ±0.0033
This paper
262
LADIES
0.7531 ±0.0056
This paper
308
FastGCN
0.7346 ±0.0020
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIANT-XRT
0.7612 ±0.0016
2
GEGCN
0.7576 ±0.0064
3
AGDN
0.7522 ±0.0007
23
GCN
0.7300 ±0.0017
25
GraphSAGE
actual #25 vs paper #58 33 places worse
0.7155 ±0.0041
actual #25 vs paper #58 33 places worse
paper 0.7155 ±0.0041

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7155 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0009 Δ today 0.0122
100
FastGCN
0.6610 ±0.0106
This paper
105
LADIES
0.6278 ±0.0089
This paper
107
MLP
0.5765 ±0.0012
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