KDD 2025

Quantizing Text-attributed Graphs for Semantic-Structural Integration

Jianyuan Bo, Hao Wu, Yuan Fang

Main figure for Quantizing Text-attributed Graphs for Semantic-Structural Integration

Abstract

Text-attributed graphs (TAGs) have emerged as a powerful representation for modeling complex relationships across diverse domains. With the rise of large language models (LLMs), there is growing interest in leveraging their capabilities for graph learning. However, current approaches face significant challenges in embedding structural information into LLM-compatible formats, requiring either computationally expensive alignment mechanisms or manual graph verbalization techniques that often lose critical structural details. Moreover, these methods typically require labeled data from source domains for effective transfer learning, significantly constraining their adaptability. We propose STAG, a novel self-supervised framework that directly quantizes graph structural information into discrete tokens using a frozen codebook. Unlike traditional quantization approaches, our method employs soft assignment and KL divergence guided quantization to address the unique challenges of graph data, which lacks natural tokenization structures. Our framework enables both LLM-based and traditional learning approaches, supporting true zero-shot transfer learning without requiring labeled data even in the source domain. Extensive experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across multiple node classification benchmarks while maintaining compatibility with different LLM architectures, offering an elegant solution to bridging graph learning with LLMs.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #264 263 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #264 263 places worse
paper 0.7055 ±0.0826
paper 0.7055 ±0.0826 Δ at pub 0.2247
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #176 145 places worse
0.8533
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #176 145 places worse
paper 0.7795 ±0.0781

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7795 ±0.0781 Δ at pub 0.0738
41
STAG + Linear Probing
0.8405 ±0.0578
This paper
47
STAG + Prompt Tuning*
0.8355 ±0.0594
This paper
76
GraphMAE2
0.8095 ±0.0496
This paper
102
LLaMA2-7B + PT
0.7990 ±0.0769
This paper
106
LLaMA2-13B
0.7980 ±0.0730
This paper
124
STAG
0.7920 ±0.0841
This paper
136
LLama2-7B
0.7900 ±0.0796
This paper
151
DGI
actual #151 vs paper #151
0.7865 ±0.0690
actual #151 vs paper #151
paper 0.7865 ±0.0690

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7865 ±0.0690 Δ at pub 0.0040
156
OFA
actual #156 vs paper #313 157 places worse
0.7855 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #156 vs paper #313 157 places worse
paper 0.4645 ±0.0467
paper 0.4645 ±0.0467 Δ at pub 0.3210
174
Raw Feat + Linear Probing
0.7805 ±0.0747
This paper
205
Raw Text
0.7715 ±0.0692
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
246
Raw Feat + Quantization
0.7340 ±0.0819
This paper
267
G2P2
0.6990 ±0.1052
This paper
314
PRODIGY
0.4325 ±0.0691
This paper
315
GPPT
0.2900 ±0.0808
This paper

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #142 136 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #142 136 places worse
paper 0.8008 ±0.0741

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8008 ±0.0741 Δ at pub 0.0860
9
GAT
actual #9 vs paper #101 92 places worse
0.8829
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #101 92 places worse
paper 0.8194 ±0.0707

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8194 ±0.0707 Δ at pub 0.0635
12
Raw Text
0.8758 ±0.0548
This paper
32
OFA
actual #32 vs paper #374 342 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #374 342 places worse
paper 0.5965 ±0.0570
paper 0.5965 ±0.0570 Δ at pub 0.2658
62
STAG + Prompt Tuning*
0.8403 ±0.0554
This paper
63
STAG + Linear Probing
0.8394 ±0.0678
This paper
125
GraphMAE2
actual #125 vs paper #125
0.8108 ±0.0800
actual #125 vs paper #125
paper 0.8108 ±0.0800

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8108 ±0.0800 Δ at pub 0.0676
155
STAG
0.7975 ±0.0933
This paper
227
Raw Feat + Linear Probing
0.7753 ±0.0716
This paper
258
G2P2
0.7552 ±0.1010
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
352
Raw Feat + Quantization
0.6584 ±0.0996
This paper
366
PRODIGY
0.6220 ±0.0729
This paper
383
GPPT
0.5518 ±0.1189
This paper

Knowledge Graphs

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
FedSage
0.8426 ±0.0026
2
FED-PUB
0.8348 ±0.0025
3
FedAvg
0.8252 ±0.0023
7
GCN
0.8171 ±0.0030
10
OFA
actual #10 vs paper #96 86 places worse
0.8000
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #96 86 places worse
paper 0.3435
20
STAG + Linear Probing
0.5830
This paper
94
STAG
0.4175
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere