CO-EVOLVE: Bidirectional Co-Evolution of Graph Structure and Semantics for Heterophilous Learning

Jinming Xing, Muhammad Shahzad

Main figure for CO-EVOLVE: Bidirectional Co-Evolution of Graph Structure and Semantics for Heterophilous Learning

Abstract

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) promises to unify semantic understanding with structural reasoning, yet existing methods typically rely on static, unidirectional pipelines. These approaches suffer from fundamental limitations: (1) Bidirectional Error Propagation, where semantic hallucinations in LLMs or structural noise in GNNs permanently poison the downstream modality without opportunity for recourse; (2) Semantic-Structural Dissonance, particularly in heterophilous settings where textual similarity contradicts topological reality; and (3) a Blind Leading the Blind phenomenon, where indiscriminate alignment forces models to mirror each other's mistakes regardless of uncertainty. To address these challenges, we propose CO-EVOLVE, a dual-view co-evolution framework that treats graph topology and semantic embeddings as dynamic, mutually reinforcing latent variables. By employing a Gauss-Seidel alternating optimization strategy, our framework establishes a cyclic feedback loop: the GNN injects structural context as Soft Prompts to guide the LLM, while the LLM constructs favorable Dynamic Semantic Graphs to rewire the GNN. We introduce three key innovations to stabilize this evolution: (1) a Hard-Structure Conflict-Aware Contrastive Loss that warps the semantic manifold to respect high-order topological boundaries; (2) an Adaptive Node Gating Mechanism that dynamically fuses static and learnable structures to recover missing links; and (3) an Uncertainty-Gated Consistency strategy that enables meta-cognitive alignment, ensuring models only learn from the confident view. Finally, an Entropy-Aware Adaptive Fusion integrates predictions during inference. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks demonstrate that CO-EVOLVE significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving average improvements of 9.07\

Proposed method: CO-EVOLVE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
0.9660
39
GAT
actual #39 vs paper #139 100 places worse
0.9600 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #139 100 places worse
paper 0.5246
paper 0.5246 Δ at pub 0.4354
58
GCN
actual #58 vs paper #139 81 places worse
0.9530 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #139 81 places worse
paper 0.5317
paper 0.5317 Δ at pub 0.4213
129
LLaGA
0.6186
This paper
130
CO-EVOLVE
0.6084
This paper
131
TAPE
0.5918
This paper
135
FLAG
0.5809
This paper
136
ZeroG
0.5802
This paper
137
PATTON
0.5653
This paper
138
RoBERTa
0.5578
This paper
139
Sent-BERT
0.5577
This paper
140
InstructGLM
0.5192
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #214 213 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #214 213 places worse
paper 0.7649
paper 0.7649 Δ at pub 0.1653
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
30
CO-EVOLVE
0.8535
This paper
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #210 179 places worse
0.8533
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #210 179 places worse
paper 0.7683
36
TAPE
0.8444
This paper
53
FLAG
0.8304
This paper
61
PATTON
0.8205
This paper
79
LLaGA
actual #79 vs paper #260 181 places worse
0.8074
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #260 181 places worse
paper 0.7164
146
ZeroG
actual #146 vs paper #146
0.7882
actual #146 vs paper #146
paper 0.7882
236
RoBERTa
0.7477
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
239
InstructGLM
0.7440
This paper
243
Sent-BERT
0.7420
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