Revisiting Graph-Tokenizing Large Language Models: A Systematic Evaluation of Graph Token Understanding

Zhongjian Zhang, Yue Yu, Mengmei Zhang, Junping Du, Xiao Wang, Chuan Shi

Main figure for Revisiting Graph-Tokenizing Large Language Models: A Systematic Evaluation of Graph Token Understanding

Abstract

The remarkable success of large language models (LLMs) has motivated researchers to adapt them as universal predictors for various graph tasks. As a widely recognized paradigm, Graph-Tokenizing LLMs (GTokenLLMs) compress complex graph data into graph tokens and treat them as prefix tokens for querying LLMs, leading many to believe that LLMs can understand graphs more effectively and efficiently. In this paper, we challenge this belief: Do GTokenLLMs fully understand graph tokens in the natural-language embedding space? Motivated by this question, we formalize a unified framework for GTokenLLMs and propose an evaluation pipeline, GTEval, to assess graph-token understanding via instruction transformations at the format and content levels. We conduct extensive experiments on 6 representative GTokenLLMs with GTEval. The primary findings are as follows: (1) Existing GTokenLLMs do not fully understand graph tokens. They exhibit over-sensitivity or over-insensitivity to instruction changes, and rely heavily on text for reasoning; (2) Although graph tokens preserve task-relevant graph information and receive attention across LLM layers, their utilization varies across models and instruction variants; (3) Additional instruction tuning can improve performance on the original and seen instructions, but it does not fully address the challenge of graph-token understanding, calling for further improvement.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
15
InstructGLM
actual #15 vs paper #706 691 places worse
0.9077
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #706 691 places worse
paper 0.7859
paper 0.7859 Δ at pub 0.1218
21
GCN
0.9004
124
LLaGA
actual #124 vs paper #124
0.8745
actual #124 vs paper #124
paper 0.8745
paper 0.8745 Δ at pub 0.0620
724
MLP
0.7768
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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