Towards Efficient LLM-aware Heterogeneous Graph Learning

Wenda Li, Tongya Zheng, Shunyu Liu, Yu Wang, Kaixuan Chen, Hanyang Yuan, Bingde Hu, Zujie Ren, Mingli Song, Gang Chen

Main figure for Towards Efficient LLM-aware Heterogeneous Graph Learning

Abstract

Heterogeneous graphs are widely present in real-world complex networks, where the diversity of node and relation types leads to complex and rich semantics. Efforts for modeling complex relation semantics in heterogeneous graphs are restricted by the limitations of predefined semantic dependencies and the scarcity of supervised signals. The advanced pre-training and fine-tuning paradigm leverages graph structure to provide rich self-supervised signals, but introduces semantic gaps between tasks. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer significant potential to address the semantic issues of relations and tasks in heterogeneous graphs through their strong reasoning capabilities in textual modality, but their incorporation into heterogeneous graphs is largely limited by computational complexity. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an Efficient LLM-Aware (ELLA) framework for heterogeneous graphs, addressing the above issues. To capture complex relation semantics, we propose an LLM-aware Relation Tokenizer that leverages LLM to encode multi-hop, multi-type relations. To reduce computational complexity, we further employ a Hop-level Relation Graph Transformer, which help reduces the complexity of LLM-aware relation reasoning from exponential to linear. To bridge semantic gaps between pre-training and fine-tuning tasks, we introduce the fine-grained task-aware textual Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts. Extensive experiments on four heterogeneous graphs show that our proposed ELLA outperforms state-of-the-art methods in the performance and efficiency. In particular, ELLA scales up to 13b-parameter LLMs and achieves up to a 4× speedup compared with existing LLM-based methods. Our code is publicly available at.

Proposed method: ELLA

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 17 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9566 ±0.0020
2
PSHGCN
0.9561 ±0.0012
3
RpHGNN
0.9555 ±0.0029
13
HINormer
actual #13 vs paper #193 180 places worse
0.9494 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #193 180 places worse
paper 0.2220 ±0.0530
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #182 161 places worse
0.9460 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #182 161 places worse
paper 0.5810 ±0.0040
paper 0.5810 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.3650
23
GAT
actual #23 vs paper #185 162 places worse
0.9448 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #185 162 places worse
paper 0.5480 ±0.0180
paper 0.5480 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.3968
46
GraphSAGE
0.9306 ±0.0047
124
ELLA
0.8150 ±0.0010
This paper
132
HetSANN
actual #132 vs paper #176 44 places worse
0.8056 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #132 vs paper #176 44 places worse
paper 0.6290 ±0.0050
best at pub: Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks (KDD 2021)
paper 0.6290 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.1766 Δ today 0.1766
140
THLM
0.7950 ±0.0050
This paper
156
GPPT
actual #156 vs paper #193 37 places worse
0.7456 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #156 vs paper #193 37 places worse
paper 0.1980
176
MLP
0.6447 ±0.0136
178
GraphBridge
0.6200 ±0.0170
This paper
179
R-HGNN
0.6140 ±0.0170
This paper
181
NAGphormer
0.5990 ±0.0010
This paper
183
SimGRACE
actual #183 vs paper #186 3 places worse
0.5787 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #186 3 places worse
paper 0.5180 ±0.0360
186
GraphCL
0.5300 ±0.0040
This paper
188
HGPrompt
0.3970 ±0.0010
This paper
192
SHGP
0.3340 ±0.0300
This paper
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9469 ±0.0036
2
PSHGCN
0.9427 ±0.0023
3
SlotGAT
0.9406 ±0.0022
7
HINormer
actual #7 vs paper #114 107 places worse
0.9383 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #114 107 places worse
paper 0.5000 ±0.0320
paper 0.5000 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.4383
19
GAT
actual #19 vs paper #66 47 places worse
0.9273
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #66 47 places worse
paper 0.8900 ±0.0010
paper 0.8900 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0373
29
GCN
actual #29 vs paper #73 44 places worse
0.9229
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #73 44 places worse
paper 0.8860 ±0.0010
paper 0.8860 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0369
49
GIN
0.9092
63
HetSANN
actual #63 vs paper #98 35 places worse
0.8991 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #98 35 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0030
best at pub: Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks (KDD 2021)
paper 0.8250 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0741 Δ today 0.0741
65
ELLA
0.8970 ±0.0010
This paper
67
NAGphormer
0.8900 ±0.0020
This paper
68
HeCo
actual #68 vs paper #113 45 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0112
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #113 45 places worse
paper 0.5940 ±0.0040
paper 0.5940 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.2957
72
GraphAdapter
0.8870 ±0.0020
This paper
75
GraphBridge
0.8830 ±0.0060
This paper
80
THLM
0.8800 ±0.0010
This paper
83
ENGINE
0.8780 ±0.0050
This paper
86
GraphCL
0.8670 ±0.0130
This paper
87
R-HGNN
0.8660 ±0.0200
This paper
97
SimGRACE
0.8390 ±0.0110
This paper
102
GPPT
0.8090 ±0.0020
This paper
109
MLP
0.7102 ±0.0221
112
HGPrompt
0.6320 ±0.0030
This paper
113
SHGP
0.6180 ±0.0090
This paper
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
ELLA
0.7930 ±0.0010
This paper
2
MHGCN
0.7820 ±0.0138
3
PSHGCN
0.7446 ±0.0032
14
GCN
actual #14 vs paper #94 80 places worse
0.6813 ±0.0083
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #94 80 places worse
paper 0.4550 ±0.0060
paper 0.4550 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.2263
15
GAT
actual #15 vs paper #90 75 places worse
0.6808 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #90 75 places worse
paper 0.4790 ±0.0080
paper 0.4790 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.2018
16
HINormer
actual #16 vs paper #108 92 places worse
0.6783 ±0.0034
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #108 92 places worse
paper 0.3290 ±0.0330
23
GraphAdapter
0.6730 ±0.0050
This paper
25
GHGRL
0.6670 ±0.0110
This paper
36
R-HGNN
actual #36 vs paper #93 57 places worse
0.6417
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #93 57 places worse
paper 0.4640 ±0.0100
paper 0.4640 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1777
44
GraphSAGE
0.6276
53
HetSANN
actual #53 vs paper #90 37 places worse
0.6069
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #90 37 places worse
paper 0.4800 ±0.0060
paper 0.4800 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1269
64
THLM
0.5720 ±0.0060
This paper
74
MLP
0.5514
82
HeCo
actual #82 vs paper #106 24 places worse
0.5212 ±0.0072
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #106 24 places worse
paper 0.3600 ±0.0230
paper 0.3600 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.1612
87
ENGINE
0.4970 ±0.0150
This paper
91
GraphBridge
0.4770 ±0.0150
This paper
92
NAGphormer
0.4720 ±0.0080
This paper
94
SimGRACE
0.4580 ±0.0020
This paper
99
GraphCL
0.4040 ±0.0130
This paper
102
GPPT
0.3830 ±0.0120
This paper
105
HGPrompt
0.3700 ±0.0110
This paper
106
HiGPT
0.3640 ±0.0220
This paper
107
SHGP
0.3540 ±0.0390
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)