Democratizing Large Language Model-Based Graph Data Augmentation via Latent Knowledge Graphs

Yushi Feng, Tsai Hor Chan, Guosheng Yin, Lequan Yu

Main figure for Democratizing Large Language Model-Based Graph Data Augmentation via Latent Knowledge Graphs

Abstract

Data augmentation is necessary for graph representation learning due to the scarcity and noise present in graph data. Most of the existing augmentation methods overlook the context information inherited from the dataset as they rely solely on the graph structure for augmentation. Despite the success of some large language model-based (LLM) graph learning methods, they are mostly white-box which require access to the weights or latent features from the open-access LLMs, making them difficult to be democratized for everyone as existing LLMs are mostly closed-source for commercial considerations. To overcome these limitations, we propose a black-box context-driven graph data augmentation approach, with the guidance of LLMs --- DemoGraph. Leveraging the text prompt as context-related information, we task the LLM with generating knowledge graphs (KGs), which allow us to capture the structural interactions from the text outputs. We then design a dynamic merging schema to stochastically integrate the LLM-generated KGs into the original graph during training. To control the sparsity of the augmented graph, we further devise a granularity-aware prompting strategy and an instruction fine-tuning module, which seamlessly generates text prompts according to different granularity levels of the dataset. Extensive experiments on various graph learning tasks validate the effectiveness of our method over existing graph data augmentation methods. Notably, our approach excels in scenarios involving electronic health records (EHRs), which validates its maximal utilization of contextual knowledge, leading to enhanced predictive performance and interpretability.

Proposed method: LLMs

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
21
GCN
0.9850
63
DemoGraph
0.9720 ±0.0340
This paper
82
Static
0.9467
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
10
LLMs
actual #10 vs paper #55 45 places worse
0.8820 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #55 45 places worse
paper 0.8422 ±0.0027
paper 0.8422 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0398
90
TAPE
actual #90 vs paper #90
0.8234 ±0.0036
actual #90 vs paper #90
paper 0.8234 ±0.0036
paper 0.8234 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.0258
288
LLM*
0.7440 ±0.0023
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
379
DropNode
0.5694 ±0.0045
This paper
382
DropEdge
0.5523 ±0.0032
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
95
LLMs
0.3790 ±0.0160
This paper
107
RandomwalkPE
0.3770 ±0.0270
This paper
145
DropNode
0.3680 ±0.0150
This paper
144
DropEdge
actual #144 vs paper #144
0.3680 ±0.0290
actual #144 vs paper #144
paper 0.3680 ±0.0290
148
None
actual #148 vs paper #148
0.3670 ±0.0180
actual #148 vs paper #148
paper 0.3670 ±0.0180
149
LaplacianPE
0.3670 ±0.0210
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published