A Hierarchical Language Model For Interpretable Graph Reasoning

Sambhav Khurana, Xiner Li, Shurui Gui, Shuiwang Ji

Main figure for A Hierarchical Language Model For Interpretable Graph Reasoning

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly explored for graph tasks. Despite their remarkable success in text-based tasks, LLMs' capabilities in understanding explicit graph structures remain limited, particularly with large graphs. In this work, we introduce Hierarchical Language Model for Graph (HLM-G), which employs a two-block architecture to capture node-centric local information and interaction-centric global structure, effectively enhancing graph structure understanding abilities. The proposed scheme allows LLMs to address various graph queries with high efficacy, efficiency, and robustness, while reducing computational costs on large-scale graph tasks. Furthermore, we demonstrate the interpretability of our model using intrinsic attention weights and established explainers. Comprehensive evaluations across diverse graph reasoning and real-world tasks of node, link, and graph-levels highlight the superiority of our method, marking a significant advancement in the application of LLMs to graph understanding.

Proposed method: LLMs

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #185 76 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #185 76 places worse
paper 0.7626 ±0.0141

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7626 ±0.0141 Δ at pub 0.0154
113
GTN
0.7767 ±0.0149
This paper
140
GAT
actual #140 vs paper #248 108 places worse
0.7717 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #140 vs paper #248 108 places worse
paper 0.7445 ±0.0153
paper 0.7445 ±0.0153 Δ at pub 0.0272
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
178
HLM-G
0.7649 ±0.0033
This paper
184
GCN
actual #184 vs paper #225 41 places worse
0.7630 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #225 41 places worse
paper 0.7549 ±0.0163

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7549 ±0.0163 Δ at pub 0.0081
207
MoMu
0.7592 ±0.0085
This paper
254
Mamba
0.7423 ±0.0012
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)