Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Bootstrapping Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning via Large Language Models: A Generalized Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a language model can stand in for hand-labeled node and edge types in heterogeneous graph learning, with a type-conditional GNN doing the learning.

desk verdict GHGRL is a genuinely new type-free heterogeneous GNN method with credible standard-benchmark results, but the IMDB-RIR evidence is compromised by likely label leakage through Google snippets. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08038 v3 pith:HYKD7F4T submitted 2024-12-11 cs.LG cs.CLcs.SI

Hang Gao , Chenhao Zhang , Fengge Wu , Junsuo Zhao , Changwen Zheng , Huaping Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.SI
keywords heterogeneousgraphrepresentationlearninglargelanguagemodelsparameteradaptiveGNNnodetypeestimationover-smoothingneuralnetworksfeaturealignmenttext-attributedgraphs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Heterogeneous graph neural networks normally need to know node and edge types in advance and need node attributes in a single unified format. This paper proposes GHGRL, a pipeline that removes both requirements: a large language model samples node attributes, builds a taxonomy of format types and content types, writes a description of each node, assigns it to the generated types with confidence scores, and embeds the text into fixed-length vectors. A purpose-built GNN then uses those estimated types to choose per-type parameters for message passing, so no ground-truth type annotation is ever used. The paper reports that on the standard IMDB, DBLP, and ACM benchmarks the method matches or beats heterogeneous GNN baselines that do receive true type information, and that it outperforms LLM-based baselines by a wide margin on two new datasets with noisy or partially deleted text. It also proves that the type-conditional layer keeps representations of differently typed nodes linearly independent even as the network grows deep, avoiding over-smoothing.

What carries the argument

The central object is PAGNN, the Parameter Adaptive GNN, a message-passing layer whose parameters are chosen per node from the LLM's type estimates. Each layer has three blocks: a format alignment block applies a per-format weight matrix and bias scaled by the LLM's format confidence; a content processing block applies per-content-type transforms and aggregates neighbor messages with source-type-dependent weights; and a regular learning block acts like a GCN layer. The type taxonomies $\Phi_{\text{fmt}}$ and $\Phi_{\text{cont}}$ are generated once by the LLM from a random sample of node attributes, and each node's assignments come with confidence scores $c_{\text{fmt}}(v)$ and $c_{\text{cont}}(v)$. The theoretical analysis uses a simplified layer with per-type affine maps $W[\phi(v)]$ and $B[\phi(v)]$ to show that nodes assigned different types remain linearly independent even as the number of layers tends to infinity, which is how the paper argues the architecture avoids over-smoothing.

What would settle it

Run IMDB-RIR with the Google snippets scrubbed of genre, plot, and venue words, or generate node texts from entities created after the LLM's knowledge cutoff; if GHGRL's large margin over the LLM baselines collapses, the reported gains come from label leakage rather than from type discovery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that GHGRL can handle graph data with nodes and edges of any format and type without requiring explicit type information or special preprocessing. The method makes the LLM both a type discoverer and a feature aligner: Llama 3 generates format-type and content-type sets from a sample of node attributes, then for each node produces a rich description, a format-type assignment, a content-type assignment, and confidence scores for both; a sentence transformer converts the description and reasoning into a fixed-length feature vector. The graph-side learner is PAGNN, whose parameters are selected according to the estimated types, with confidence scores interpolating between type-specific transforms and the identity to tolerate LLM mistakes. The experimental section reports that this pipeline achieves best-or-comparable performance against heterogeneous GNN methods that use additional type information on IMDB, DBLP, and ACM, and that it substantially outperforms LLM-based baselines on the newly constructed IMDB-RIR and DBLP-RID datasets. The paper presents this as evidence that LLM-generated type taxonomies plus confidence-weighted GNN message passing can substitute for manual type annotation in heterogeneous graph learning.

Load-bearing premise

The headline results on the new datasets assume that replacing node text with Google search snippets and randomly deleting text does not leak the classification labels through genre, venue, or topic keywords that the LLM can recognize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can train competitive heterogeneous graph models on datasets where node and edge types are unknown, because the LLM supplies type labels on request.
  • Graphs with mixed or messy text attributes, such as search snippets, partial fields, or differently formatted descriptions, become processable without building a separate embedding pipeline for each format.
  • The confidence-score weighting lets the GNN tolerate LLM misassignments, so imperfect type estimates do not force a performance collapse.
  • The over-smoothing result implies that deeper type-conditional GNNs can preserve distinctions between node types where an equivalent-depth plain GCN would collapse features together.
  • Because the method also improves on the homogeneous Wiki-CS dataset, its benefit is not limited to graphs with known heterogeneity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: a decisive test is to rerun IMDB-RIR and DBLP-RID with label-scrubbed text or entities created after the LLM's knowledge cutoff, which would separate genuine type discovery from memorized associations.
  • Editorial inference: the design suggests a general recipe in which any pretrained categorizer that outputs confidence scores could supply the type signal, so the same GNN could be paired with non-text classifiers for logs or sensor streams.
  • Editorial inference: a natural extension is to make the number of generated types adaptive rather than fixing it with a hyperparameter, removing the last user-supplied choice.
  • Editorial inference: the over-smoothing proof is stated for a simplified layer, and verifying whether the full three-block PAGNN layer inherits the guarantee would strengthen the claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GHGRL, a method that combines LLMs with GNNs for heterogeneous graph representation learning without requiring pre-specified node/edge type information or unified node attribute formats. GHGRL first uses a frozen LLM to generate format and content type taxonomies from sampled node attributes, then processes each node to obtain a description, a format/content type estimate, and confidence scores, and finally feeds the resulting node features into a type-conditional GNN (PAGNN) whose parameters are selected by the estimated types. The authors provide a theorem that the model avoids over-smoothing, and evaluate on IMDB, DBLP, ACM, Wiki-CS, and two newly constructed datasets (IMDB-RIR, DBLP-RID), reporting competitive or best results against GNN, HGNN, and LLM-based baselines.

Significance. The central idea is timely and potentially useful: bootstrapping type information from data via an LLM could broaden the applicability of heterogeneous GNNs to settings where type metadata is unavailable. The paper makes several concrete contributions: a modular pipeline that is clearly described and reproducible (code is released), a deliberately different architecture (PAGNN) for using LLM-provided types and confidences, a set of new 'diverse-format' datasets, and an attempted theoretical argument against over-smoothing. If the empirical claims held in full generality, the method would be a meaningful step toward type-free heterogeneous graph learning. However, as detailed below, the headline claims are not fully supported by the current evidence: the new datasets are confounded with label leakage, the 'any format' claim is tested only on text, and the theoretical proof is not rigorous. The contribution remains promising but currently falls short of the paper's stated scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D.1 and Table 4] The IMDB-RIR dataset construction is likely to leak the classification label through the search snippets. The IMDB prediction target is the movie genre, and the top-10 Google results for a movie title typically contain genre keywords and plot summaries. Since the LLM processing prompt (Appendix C) explicitly asks for a comprehensive description and a content-type estimate, GHGRL's node embeddings can directly absorb genre information from the snippets. As a result, the large margins over text-only LLM baselines in Table 4 do not isolate the contribution of type-free heterogeneous message passing; they may largely reflect the ability to recover labels from web text. To support the claim that GHGRL generalizes to raw 'internet information,' please provide a leakage check, e.g., train a simple text classifier on the snippets alone and report its accuracy, or construct a variant of IMDB-RIR from which genre- and plot-related terms are removed, and show that GHGRL's advantage persists.
  2. [Abstract and Section 'Methodology'] The claim that GHGRL handles 'nodes and edges of any format and type' is not supported by the method or the experiments. The format-alignment block (Eq. 4-5) operates only on node attribute vectors; edge attributes are never processed, and edge-type differentiation is only implicit through the content types of the two endpoint nodes in Eq. 7. Moreover, all experiments, including the new datasets, use text-only node attributes, so 'any format' is never exercised with, e.g., images, audio, or purely numeric features. Please either restrict the claims to text-attribute heterogeneous graphs or extend the method and experiments to non-text modalities and to explicit edge attributes.
  3. [Appendix B.1, proof of Theorem 1] The proof of Theorem 1 does not establish the claimed non-over-smoothing result. After introducing the 'Selection' operation in Eq. 23, the proof argues that type-dependent affine parameters can break linear dependence, but this only concerns a single transformation step; it does not control the behavior of the iterated type-dependent propagation operator as L grows. The spectral decomposition argument in Eq. 23 is not valid because the Selection operation is a non-linear, node-dependent parameter choice, so the product form (P Λ P^T)^L cannot be rearranged in the way the proof assumes. Furthermore, the statement that the values of Λ^L 'fall into (−1, 1]' and 'after repeatedly multiplying ... the result will be an eigenvalue matrix with values of 0 or 1' is incorrect: eigenvalues with |λ| < 1 converge to 0, and for bipartite graphs the eigenvalue −1 does not converge to 0 or 1. Please provide a rigorous convergence proof, or weaken the theorem to a finite-layer non-collapse statement that can be proven with the given machinery.
  4. [Section 'Results on heterogeneous graph datasets with extra diversity' and Tables 3-4] The text's table references are inconsistent with the actual content of Tables 3 and 4. The paragraph discussing IMDB-RIR/DBLP-RID states 'Table 4 demonstrates the results' but then refers to 'in Table 3, we also integrated the LLM processing module,' whereas the table labelled Table 3 shows only GHGRL and the base LLM baselines on the diversity datasets, and Table 4 is the one containing the '+ LLM' variants of HGNN methods. Please renumber or re-label the tables and correct the in-text citations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1] The checkmark patterns in the three sub-figures are inconsistent with the text: for instance, 'Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks' is marked with ✘ for 'Handle Heterogeneous Graph' even though HGNNs by definition handle heterogeneous graphs. Please correct the symbols so that the figure matches the claims made in the surrounding discussion.
  2. [Table 2] The abbreviation 'SHEGNN-w' appears in the table; it is likely a typo for 'SeHGNN-w'. Please make the notation uniform with the rest of the paper.
  3. [Appendix E.3] The first two paragraphs of the ablation section are duplicated almost verbatim. Please remove the duplicate.
  4. [Equation (7)] In Eq. (7), the parameter matrix fW cont is indexed by φ(v), but the notation used elsewhere indicates content type; please clarify whether the index is φcont(v) or φ(v) and use the same symbol consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: type generation and PAGNN training are label-independent, and the IMDB-RIR leakage concern is a benchmark-validity issue rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

GHGRL's derivation chain is not circular. The node-type taxonomy and per-node type estimates are produced from node attributes by a frozen LLM (Equations 1-3) before any labeled training, and the GNN is then trained on the downstream task, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The PAGNN equations (4-8) define a concrete architecture rather than restating the reported results. The over-smoothing theorem in Appendix B.1 contains an unproven assertion about per-type parameters preserving non-collinearity, but that is a correctness gap in the proof, not an equivalence between input and output by construction. The IMDB-RIR/DBLP-RID label-leakage possibility (Google snippets may include genre or topic words correlated with the target) is an evaluation-validity and contamination concern, not a circularity in the method itself, because the LLM is not fitted to the labels and the type-generation step is independent of the prediction targets. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem, and the method is benchmarked against external datasets and prior published baselines, so the empirical claims are not self-confirming.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on the LLM to produce usable type taxonomies and confidence scores from raw attribute text, and on the text-centric pipeline to represent node information. The free parameters are architecture hyperparameters chosen per dataset; no physical constant or supernaturally tuned coefficient is introduced. The typology of invented entities is empty because the method creates latent labels from data rather than postulating external mechanisms.

free parameters (4)
  • mfmt, number of format types = Not stated globally; e.g., 2 for IMDB-RIR per Appendix D
    Hyperparameter controlling the size of the generated format type set and the first dimension of W fmt. Chosen by hand per dataset.
  • mcont, number of content types = Not stated globally; e.g., 3 for IMDB per Table 7
    Hyperparameter controlling the size of the generated content type set and the first dimension of W cont. Chosen by hand per dataset.
  • alpha, self-proportion weight in message passing = 0.7 or 0.75
    Hyperparameter in Equation 7 controlling how much of a node's own feature is retained during aggregation. Set per dataset by hand.
  • lfmt, lcont, L, layer hyperparameters = e.g., lfmt=0, lcont=2, L=2 for IMDB
    Control how many PAGNN layers retain the format alignment and content processing blocks. Chosen by hand per dataset; for standard text datasets lfmt=0 disables the format block entirely.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LLM (Llama 3) can reliably summarize node attributes into a small set of format/content types and produce useful confidence scores.
    The entire method depends on the quality of LLM-generated types and confidence estimates. The paper acknowledges imperfect type estimation (Section 'LLM processing analysis') but assumes the errors are manageable.
  • domain assumption Node attributes are available as natural language text, or can be converted to text without information loss.
    The pipeline uses LLM text prompts and a sentence transformer. Non-textual node features (images, raw numeric vectors) are not handled, despite the 'any format' claim in the abstract.
  • standard math Standard spectral graph theory results (e.g., Chung 1997 on eigenvalue bounds) apply to the normalized adjacency matrix used in the over-smoothing analysis.
    Invoked in Appendix B.1, proof of Theorem 1, to assert that eigenvalues of the propagation matrix fall in (-1,1].
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified model g(e) in Equation 11 adequately represents GHGRL's behavior for the over-smoothing analysis.
    The paper says the simplified model 'bears significant similarity' to the real architecture, but the real PAGNN layers remove blocks after lfmt/lcont and use confidence-gated interpolation, which the simplification ignores (Section Analysis).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bootstrapping Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning via Large Language Models: A Generalized Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYKD7F4T

@misc{pith2026241208038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bootstrapping Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning via Large Language Models: A Generalized Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYKD7F4T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08038}
}
read the original abstract

Graph representation learning methods are highly effective in handling complex non-Euclidean data by capturing intricate relationships and features within graph structures. However, traditional methods face challenges when dealing with heterogeneous graphs that contain various types of nodes and edges due to the diverse sources and complex nature of the data. Existing Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks (HGNNs) have shown promising results but require prior knowledge of node and edge types and unified node feature formats, which limits their applicability. Recent advancements in graph representation learning using Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new solutions by integrating LLMs' data processing capabilities, enabling the alignment of various graph representations. Nevertheless, these methods often overlook heterogeneous graph data and require extensive preprocessing. To address these limitations, we propose a novel method that leverages the strengths of both LLM and GNN, allowing for the processing of graph data with any format and type of nodes and edges without the need for type information or special preprocessing. Our method employs LLM to automatically summarize and classify different data formats and types, aligns node features, and uses a specialized GNN for targeted learning, thus obtaining effective graph representations for downstream tasks. Theoretical analysis and experimental validation have demonstrated the effectiveness of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of different methods. processing such data without the need for additional data cleaning and annotation is highly necessary. At the same time, these methods often require a certain degree of pre￾processing of the graph data, which limits their practical ap￾plication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of the proposed method. The snowflake symbol represents the fixed model parameters, while the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Demonstration of different methods. Feature visualization. We visualized the node features of the model at different stages on the ACM dataset using the t-SNE method, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. From these fig￾ures, it is evident that at the input stage, the node features are highly mixed. However, after being processed by the LLM, these features display multiple dispersed clusters. This indi￾cates that the LLM has… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Data representations at different stages of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data representations at different stages of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The IMDB data representations at each stage of the model, after dimensionality reduction using the t-SNE method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Ai, Q.; Zhou, J.; Jiang, H.; Liu, L.; and Shi, S. 2023. When Graph Data Meets Multimodal: A New Paradigm for Graph Understanding and Reasoning. CoRR, abs/2312.10372

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Bing, R.; Yuan, G.; Zhu, M.; Meng, F.; Ma, H.; and Qiao, S. 2023. Heterogeneous graph neural networks analysis: a survey of techniques, evaluations and applications. Artif. Intell. Rev., 56(8): 8003--8042

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Brown, T. B.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Agarwal, S.; Herbert - Voss, A.; Krueger, G.; Henighan, T.; Child, R.; Ramesh, A.; Ziegler, D. M.; Wu, J.; Winter, C.; Hesse, C.; Chen, M.; Sigler, E.; Litwin, M.; Gray, S.; Chess, B.; Clark, J.; Berner, C.; McCandlish, S.; Radford...

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Chen, M.; Wei, Z.; Huang, Z.; Ding, B.; and Li, Y. 2020. Simple and Deep Graph Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 1725--1735. PMLR

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Chen, Z.; Mao, H.; Li, H.; Jin, W.; Wen, H.; Wei, X.; Wang, S.; Yin, D.; Fan, W.; Liu, H.; and Tang, J. 2023. Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models (LLMs)in Learning on Graphs. SIGKDD Explor. , 25(2): 42--61

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Devlin, J.; Chang, M.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Burstein, J.; Doran, C.; and Solorio, T., eds., Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapo...

    2019

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    V.; and Swami, A

    Dong, Y.; Chawla, N. V.; and Swami, A. 2017. metapath2vec: Scalable Representation Learning for Heterogeneous Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Halifax, NS, Canada, August 13 - 17, 2017 , 135--144. ACM

    2017

  2. [10]

    Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; Schelten, A.; Yang, A.; Fan, A.; Goyal, A.; Hartshorn, A.; Yang, A.; Mitra, A.; and et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fan, S.; Zhu, J.; Han, X.; Shi, C.; Hu, L.; Ma, B.; and Li, Y. 2019 a . Metapath-guided Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network for Intent Recommendation. In Teredesai, A.; Kumar, V.; Li, Y.; Rosales, R.; Terzi, E.; and Karypis, G., eds., Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD Internat...

    2019

  4. [12]

    E.; Tang, J.; and Yin, D

    Fan, W.; Ma, Y.; Li, Q.; He, Y.; Zhao, Y. E.; Tang, J.; and Yin, D. 2019 b . Graph Neural Networks for Social Recommendation. In Liu, L.; White, R. W.; Mantrach, A.; Silvestri, F.; McAuley, J. J.; Baeza - Yates, R.; and Zia, L., eds., The World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, S...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Fatemi, B.; Halcrow, J.; and Perozzi, B. 2023. Talk like a Graph: Encoding Graphs for Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2310.04560

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fu, X.; Zhang, J.; Meng, Z.; and King, I. 2020. MAGNN: Metapath Aggregated Graph Neural Network for Heterogeneous Graph Embedding. In Huang, Y.; King, I.; Liu, T.; and van Steen, M., eds., WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020 , 2331--2341. ACM / IW3C2

    2020

  7. [15]

    Geerts, F.; and Reutter, J. L. 2022. Expressiveness and Approximation Properties of Graph Neural Networks. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022 . OpenReview.net

    2022

  8. [16]

    Guo, J.; Du, L.; and Liu, H. 2023. GPT4Graph: Can Large Language Models Understand Graph Structured Data ? An Empirical Evaluation and Benchmarking. CoRR, abs/2305.15066

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Guo, S.; Lin, Y.; Feng, N.; Song, C.; and Wan, H. 2019. Attention Based Spatial-Temporal Graph Convolutional Networks for Traffic Flow Forecasting. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial...

    2019

  10. [18]

    He, M.; Wei, Z.; Feng, S.; Huang, Z.; Li, W.; Sun, Y.; and Yu, D. 2024 a . Spectral Heterogeneous Graph Convolutions via Positive Noncommutative Polynomials. In Chua, T.; Ngo, C.; Kumar, R.; Lauw, H. W.; and Lee, R. K., eds., Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, WWW ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    He, X.; Bresson, X.; Laurent, T.; Perold, A.; LeCun, Y.; and Hooi, B. 2024 b . Harnessing Explanations: LLM-to-LM Interpreter for Enhanced Text-Attributed Graph Representation Learning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Aus...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hong, H.; Guo, H.; Lin, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, Z.; and Ye, J. 2020. An Attention-Based Graph Neural Network for Heterogeneous Structural Learning. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Int...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Huang, C.; Ren, X.; Tang, J.; Yin, D.; and Chawla, N. V. 2024. Large Language Models for Graphs: Progresses and Directions. In Chua, T.; Ngo, C.; Lee, R. K.; Kumar, R.; and Lauw, H. W., eds., Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, WWW 2024, Singapore, Singapo...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Huang, Q.; Ren, H.; Chen, P.; Krzmanc, G.; Zeng, D.; Liang, P.; and Leskovec, J. 2023. PRODIGY: Enabling In-context Learning Over Graphs. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: A...

    2023

  15. [23]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net

    2017

  16. [24]

    Kong, L.; Feng, J.; Liu, H.; Huang, C.; Huang, J.; Chen, Y.; and Zhang, M. 2024. GOFA: A Generative One-For-All Model for Joint Graph Language Modeling. arXiv:2407.09709

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Li, C.; and Goldwasser, D. 2019. Encoding Social Information with Graph Convolutional Networks for P olitical Perspective Detection in News Media. In Korhonen, A.; Traum, D.; and M \`a rquez, L., eds., Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Li, Q.; Han, Z.; and Wu, X. 2018. Deeper Insights Into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learning. In McIlraith, S. A.; and Weinberger, K. Q., eds., Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Appli...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Liu, H.; Feng, J.; Kong, L.; Liang, N.; Tao, D.; Chen, Y.; and Zhang, M. 2024. One For All: Towards Training One Graph Model For All Classification Tasks. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  20. [28]

    Luo, Z.; Song, X.; Huang, H.; Lian, J.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, J.; Xie, X.; and Jin, H. 2024. GraphInstruct: Empowering Large Language Models with Graph Understanding and Reasoning Capability. CoRR, abs/2403.04483

    2024

  21. [29]

    Lv, Q.; Ding, M.; Liu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Feng, W.; He, S.; Zhou, C.; Jiang, J.; Dong, Y.; and Tang, J. 2021. Are we really making much progress?: Revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks. In Zhu, F.; Ooi, B. C.; and Miao, C., eds., KDD '21: The 27t...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Mernyei, P.; and Cangea, C. 2020. Wiki-CS: A Wikipedia-Based Benchmark for Graph Neural Networks. CoRR, abs/2007.02901

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Qiu, J.; Tang, J.; Ma, H.; Dong, Y.; Wang, K.; and Tang, J. 2018. DeepInf: Social Influence Prediction with Deep Learning. In Guo, Y.; and Farooq, F., eds., Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, ...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Reimers, N.; and Gurevych, I. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Inui, K.; Jiang, J.; Ng, V.; and Wan, X., eds., Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Confere...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Sun, X.; Cheng, H.; Li, J.; Liu, B.; and Guan, J. 2023. All in One: Multi-Task Prompting for Graph Neural Networks. In Singh, A. K.; Sun, Y.; Akoglu, L.; Gunopulos, D.; Yan, X.; Kumar, R.; Ozcan, F.; and Ye, J., eds., Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Tan, Y.; Lv, H.; Huang, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; and Yang, C. 2024. MuseGraph: Graph-oriented Instruction Tuning of Large Language Models for Generic Graph Mining. CoRR, abs/2403.04780

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tang, J.; Yang, Y.; Wei, W.; Shi, L.; Su, L.; Cheng, S.; Yin, D.; and Huang, C. 2024. GraphGPT: Graph Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models. In Yang, G. H.; Wang, H.; Han, S.; Hauff, C.; Zuccon, G.; and Zhang, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Co...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Velickovic, P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Li \` o , P.; and Bengio, Y. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net

    2018

  29. [37]

    Wang, H.; Feng, S.; He, T.; Tan, Z.; Han, X.; and Tsvetkov, Y. 2023 a . Can Language Models Solve Graph Problems in Natural Language? In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annua...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wang, X.; Bo, D.; Shi, C.; Fan, S.; Ye, Y.; and Yu, P. S. 2023 b . A Survey on Heterogeneous Graph Embedding: Methods, Techniques, Applications and Sources. IEEE Trans. Big Data , 9(2): 415--436

    2023

  31. [39]

    Wang, X.; Ji, H.; Shi, C.; Wang, B.; Ye, Y.; Cui, P.; and Yu, P. S. 2019. Heterogeneous Graph Attention Network. In Liu, L.; White, R. W.; Mantrach, A.; Silvestri, F.; McAuley, J. J.; Baeza - Yates, R.; and Zia, L., eds., The World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, San Francisco,...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Yang, B.; Yih, W.; He, X.; Gao, J.; and Deng, L. 2015. Embedding Entities and Relations for Learning and Inference in Knowledge Bases. In Bengio, Y.; and LeCun, Y., eds., 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Co...

    2015

  33. [41]

    Yang, C.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Y.; and Han, J. 2022. Heterogeneous Network Representation Learning: A Unified Framework With Survey and Benchmark. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 34(10): 4854--4873

    2022

  34. [42]

    Yang, X.; Yan, M.; Pan, S.; Ye, X.; and Fan, D. 2023. Simple and efficient heterogeneous graph neural network. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, 10816--10824

    2023

  35. [43]

    Yun, S.; Jeong, M.; Kim, R.; Kang, J.; and Kim, H. J. 2019. Graph Transformer Networks. In Wallach, H. M.; Larochelle, H.; Beygelzimer, A.; d'Alch \' e - Buc, F.; Fox, E. B.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neur...

    2019

  36. [44]

    Zhang, C.; Song, D.; Huang, C.; Swami, A.; and Chawla, N. V. 2019. Heterogeneous graph neural network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 793--803

    2019

  37. [45]

    Zhou, Z.; Shi, J.; Yang, R.; Zou, Y.; and Li, Q. 2023. SlotGAT: Slot-based Message Passing for Heterogeneous Graphs. In Krause, A.; Brunskill, E.; Cho, K.; Engelhardt, B.; Sabato, S.; and Scarlett, J., eds., International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Zhu, S.; Zhou, C.; Pan, S.; Zhu, X.; and Wang, B. 2019. Relation structure-aware heterogeneous graph neural network. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), 1534--1539. IEEE

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.