Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Efficient Text-Attributed Graph Learning through Selective Annotation and Graph Alignment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GAGA matches or beats LLM-augmented graph methods while annotating only 1% of nodes, using a sparse annotation graph plus two-level contrastive alignment to generalize to the full text-attributed graph.

desk verdict GAGA is a sensible contrastive-alignment method with real experiments, but the central '1% data' claim conflates LLM annotation cost with ground-truth label budget, so the headline efficiency result is unverified as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07168 v1 pith:BUJWHR6R submitted 2025-06-08 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Huanyi Xie , Lijie Hu , Lu Yu , Tianhao Huang , Longfei Li , Meng Li , Jun Zhou , Huan Wang
show 1 more author
Di Wang
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords text-attributedgraphsnodeclassificationlinkpredictionselectiveannotationgraphalignmentcontrastivelearninglargelanguagemodelsvectorquantization
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

GAGA is an attempt to make text-attributed graph learning cheap by annotating only a tiny, representative slice of the graph instead of every node. The paper claims that with about 1% of nodes annotated (or a sparse set of edges for link prediction), the framework matches or beats LLM-augmented state-of-the-art methods on node classification and link prediction benchmarks while cutting annotation time and cost by 3 to 100 times. It does so by prompting an LLM to annotate selected nodes or edges, assembling those annotations into an annotation graph, and then teaching a GNN, with the language model kept frozen, to align subgraphs of the full network with these annotations. If the claim holds, GAGA would remove the main cost barrier, paid LLM annotation and per-node fine-tuning, that keeps LLM-based graph methods off large industrial graphs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the annotation graph, built from the selected 1% of nodes or edges after LLM annotation, with edges connecting each annotation to its $k'$-nearest neighbors by embedding similarity. This graph is used in a two-level alignment: a subgraph-level contrastive loss aligns sampled two-hop neighborhoods from the text-attributed graph with matching sub-annotation graphs, while a prototype-level loss, derived from vector quantization of annotation embeddings into $k_p$ prototypes, aligns textual embeddings with prototype embeddings. A cross-attention layer between the fine-tuned GNN's node embedding and the prototype matrix fuses annotation knowledge at test time. This machinery lets semantic and structural information from sparse annotations propagate to the whole graph while the LLM encoder stays frozen.

What would settle it

Replace the density-based selector with random node selection while holding the annotation budget, alignment, and downstream fine-tuning fixed, and run on ogbn-arxiv. If random selection keeps test accuracy around 76%, the claim that representative selection is the source of GAGA's efficiency is false. Independently, count the ground-truth labels used in the final fine-tuning step: if the full standard training split is required to reach 76%, then the '1% annotated' framing does not describe the method's actual label consumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the topological structure among a small set of LLM annotations can substitute for annotation of the whole graph. GAGA first scores each node by its Euclidean distance to the nearest $k$-means cluster center in language-model embedding space and keeps the top 1% as representative, using the density score $\phi_{\mathrm{density}}(v_i) = 1/(1+\|\mathrm{Emb}(v_i)-C_{e(v_i)}\|)$; for edges it sums endpoint densities. An LLM prompted for predictions, concepts, and reasoning supplies annotations, and $k'$-nearest-neighbor links among annotation embeddings form an annotation graph. Two contrastive objectives then align two-hop sub-text graphs with corresponding sub-annotation graphs and with vector-quantized prototypes, so a frozen MiniLM encoder plus a fine-tuned GCN can be deployed downstream. On ogbn-arxiv the paper reports 76.21% accuracy at $2.87 annotation cost versus TAPE's 75.20% at $113.39, and on PubMed 94.62% versus 94.31%; for link prediction, annotating only $\sqrt{n_{\mathrm{edges}}}$ edges reaches 99.24% AUC on PubMed.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the few nodes closest to $k$-means cluster centres in language-model embedding space carry enough of the graph's semantic and structural variety that aligning their annotations with the full network teaches a model that generalizes to all the unannotated nodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On ogbn-arxiv, PubMed, and tape-arxiv23, the paper reports the best node-classification accuracy among the compared methods while using only 1% annotated nodes, with gains over TAPE of 1.01 points on ogbn-arxiv and 0.31 points on PubMed.
  • Annotation cost drops to $2.87 on ogbn-arxiv and $0.49 on PubMed, against $113.39 and $17.63 for TAPE, so LLM-augmented graph pipelines become affordable on large graphs.
  • Accuracy on ogbn-arxiv stays at 75.71% even when only 0.1% of nodes are selected, indicating the method tolerates a further tenfold reduction in the annotation budget.
  • Because the GNN backbone is interchangeable across GCN, SAGE, GAT, and RevGAT, the alignment stage can be reused with whatever message-passing model is already deployed.
  • For link prediction, annotating only a sparse set of edges yields results that lead MRR@10 on Cora and Citeseer and AUC on PubMed, so the same recipe transfers from node classification to edge-level supervision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's reported experiments, the selection rule is a testable design choice: replacing $k$-means-density selection with random or uncertainty-based selection under the same 1% budget would quantify how much of the gain comes from choosing high-density nodes rather than from the alignment module itself.
  • The two-level alignment and prototype cross-attention are not specific to node classification; they could be dropped into active-learning pipelines where a human, not an LLM, provides the sparse annotations, or into graph retrieval where prototypes act as a compact memory of recurring concepts.
  • A cheap audit is to count how many ground-truth labels enter the final GNN fine-tuning: if only the 1% annotated nodes supply labels, the method is fully label-efficient, whereas if the standard full training split is used, the efficiency claim should be read as annotation-cost efficiency rather than total label efficiency. This distinction is not spelled out in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. GAGA is a framework for node classification and link prediction on text-attributed graphs. It selects a small set of representative nodes (or edges) via k-means density scoring, prompts an LLM to generate predictions/explanations for those nodes, builds a k-NN annotation graph from the LLM outputs, aligns subgraphs of this annotation graph with subgraphs of the original TAG through two-level contrastive learning (subgraph-level and prototype-level), and then fine-tunes only a GNN on the downstream task while keeping the language model frozen. The paper reports strong accuracies on six datasets, claims state-of-the-art or near-state-of-the-art results with only 1% of data annotated, and presents time/cost comparisons against prior LLM-based methods.

Significance. If the central efficiency claim holds, GAGA is a practically useful contribution: it would substantially reduce the LLM annotation cost for TAG representation learning while retaining competitive accuracy. The paper is commendably empirical, with ablations over backbone choice, annotation ratio, prototype size, alpha, and language model; these help establish robustness of the proposed components. The strongest experimental evidence is the time/cost table and the accuracy table against strong baselines. However, the central label-efficiency claim is not yet verified because the manuscript never states how many ground-truth labels supervise the downstream fine-tuning stage. This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic one, and it must be resolved before the efficiency conclusion is reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, §5.2, §4.3] The manuscript does not state how many ground-truth labels are used when fine-tuning the GNN for downstream tasks. Section 5.1 says 'we use 1% nodes for annotation', but annotation here is the LLM-generated prediction/explanation; it is not stated whether those same 1% nodes are the only labeled examples available to the downstream classifier. Table 2 compares GAGA with GCN* and TAPE*, which are described as 'using only 1% of labeled data', but if GAGA's downstream fine-tuning uses the full training split, this is not a label-efficiency comparison. The central claim in the abstract and Section 5.2 that GAGA 'requires only 1% of the data to be annotated' is therefore ambiguous between LLM annotation cost and ground-truth label cost. The authors must specify the exact label budget for the downstream classifier and, if it differs from 1%, rerun the comparisons under matched label budgets.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (1)] The subgraph alignment loss in Eq. (1) assumes that the sub-text graph G_T and the sub-annotation graph G_A contain the same set of nodes, since it computes pairwise distances between h_i^t and h_i^a for matched indices i. However, Section 4.2 says that for each selected node v* the method samples its k-hop neighbors in 'both the TAG and annotation graph G*_A'. The annotation graph contains only the selected nodes V*_a, so its k-hop neighborhood generally has far fewer nodes than the k-hop neighborhood in the original TAG, which includes unselected neighbors. The paper does not explain how the node sets are made to correspond, or whether unmatched nodes are discarded. This is a central step of the method and needs a precise description, otherwise Eq. (1) is undefined for subgraphs of different sizes.
  3. [Table 4] The near-flat accuracy from 0.1% to 1.0% seed ratio in Table 4 is consistent with the hypothesis that the downstream classifier is trained on the full training split, since the seed ratio would then affect only the alignment stage, not the label supervision. The authors should report the downstream label budget alongside this table and, if the classifier does use full labels, provide an additional experiment where the number of downstream labels is also restricted to 1% (or another fixed small fraction). Without this, the paper does not establish that 0.1%–1.0% annotated nodes are sufficient for the complete learning pipeline.
  4. [§5.2, Table 1, Appendix A.3.2] The time and cost comparison in Table 1 is informative, but the caption in Appendix A.3.2 states that money usage includes only the cost of LLM annotation, not any other labeling cost. If the downstream stage uses a substantial number of human ground-truth labels, those costs are omitted from the efficiency comparison. The paper should clarify whether any human labeling cost is involved in GAGA and, if so, include it or explicitly scope the efficiency claim to LLM annotation only. The current wording of the abstract and Section 5.2 ('requiring only 1% of the data to be annotated') overstates what Table 1 actually measures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] In the OneForAll* row the accuracy value is printed as '0.6983' while all other accuracies in the same table are given in percent; this is almost certainly a typo for 69.83 (or an inconsistent formatting choice) and should be corrected.
  2. [§5.1] The sentence 'we use 1% nodes for annotation and √nedges for link prediction annotation with edge number nedges' is ambiguous: it should state explicitly that the number of selected edges is the square root of the number of edges in the graph, and it should define the notation consistently.
  3. [Table 6 vs. Table 2] Table 6 reports test accuracy 76.65% for kp=40 on ogbn-arxiv, while Table 2 reports 76.21% for GAGA on the same dataset with kp=40 specified in Section 5.1. The authors should explain this discrepancy, for instance by stating whether these are different runs, different seeds, or different settings.
  4. [Appendix B, Table 8] The section heading is 'Impact of Text Encoder' but the table title says 'different LLMs for annotation'; the first two rows are MiniLM variants and the latter rows are much larger models. The terminology should be aligned so that the reader knows whether the language model is used as the encoder, the annotation generator, or both.
  5. [Appendix D] The prompt for ogbn-products lists 46 categories, while Section A.1 states the dataset has 47 classes. The authors should verify that the prompt covers all possible labels, or explain why the omitted label is not needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GAGA's claims are empirical measurements, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

GAGA is an empirical method paper rather than a formal derivation: the headline results are measured classification accuracies, times, and costs on held-out test splits, not quantities derived from the method's equations. The alignment objective (Eq. 1 and Eq. 3) is a training loss, and it does not assume the reported accuracies; hyperparameters such as alpha and prototype size kp are tuned on validation data, while results such as 76.21% on ogbn-arxiv and 94.62% on PubMed are test measurements. Selection via k-means density and KNN annotation-graph construction are heuristic design choices, not steps that rename the target result. The paper contains numerous self-citations, but they appear in the related-work discussion of XAI and do not supply a load-bearing premise for GAGA's novelty or performance. The only notable ambiguity is that Section 5.1 reports 'we use 1% nodes for annotation' without explicitly stating whether the same nodes provide all ground-truth labels used in downstream fine-tuning; however, this is a possible experimental-reporting or fairness concern about label budgets, not a circular reduction, because the paper nowhere defines the reported accuracy in terms of that budget. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent to the claimed prediction by construction, so the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on the empirical assumption that a small representative subset suffices, plus several hyperparameters chosen on validation sets. The alignment loss also assumes a node correspondence that the sampling procedure does not guarantee. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Annotation ratio (seed ratio) = 1% of nodes
    Chosen to trade off accuracy and cost; Table 4 shows accuracy changes from 75.71% at 0.1% to 76.21% at 1.0%.
  • Number of k-means clusters = 40
    Stated in Section 5.1; used for density-based node selection.
  • k' for KNN annotation graph = not stated
    Used in Section 4.1 to connect annotation nodes; value is not reported.
  • Prototype dimension kp = 40
    Default in Section 5.1; Table 6 shows accuracy stable from 10 to 1280, so 40 is a hand-chosen operating point.
  • Alignment weight alpha = 0.6
    Stated in Section 5.1; Figure 2 shows stable accuracy between 0 and 1, 0.6 chosen for balance.
  • Hop size for subgraph sampling = 2
    Stated in Section 5.1.
  • Learning rates = 5e-5 (alignment), 1e-3 (downstream)
    Stated in Section 5.1; standard chosen values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption k-means density in LM embedding space identifies representative nodes whose annotations transfer to the full graph.
    Central to reducing annotation to 1%; supported only by ablation in Table 4, not by a formal argument. Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated predictions, explanations, and concepts provide a useful semantic signal for aligning annotation graphs with the TAG.
    Adopted from TAPE [23]; Section 4.1 and Appendix D.
  • ad hoc to paper The alignment loss in Eq. (1) can pair node i in the sub-text graph with node i in the sub-annotation graph.
    The sampling of k-hop neighbors around a selected node does not guarantee matched node sets between G_T and G_A, so the one-to-one correspondence in Eq. (1) is assumed without justification.
  • standard math Standard deep learning background: contrastive losses, GNN message passing, and vector quantization work as expected.
    Standard methods used without proof; Sections 3 and 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Text-Attributed Graph Learning through Selective Annotation and Graph Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUJWHR6R

@misc{pith2026250607168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Text-Attributed Graph Learning through Selective Annotation and Graph Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUJWHR6R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07168}
}
read the original abstract

In the realm of Text-attributed Graphs (TAGs), traditional graph neural networks (GNNs) often fall short due to the complex textual information associated with each node. Recent methods have improved node representations by leveraging large language models (LLMs) to enhance node text features, but these approaches typically require extensive annotations or fine-tuning across all nodes, which is both time-consuming and costly. To overcome these challenges, we introduce GAGA, an efficient framework for TAG representation learning. GAGA reduces annotation time and cost by focusing on annotating only representative nodes and edges. It constructs an annotation graph that captures the topological relationships among these annotations. Furthermore, GAGA employs a two-level alignment module to effectively integrate the annotation graph with the TAG, aligning their underlying structures. Experiments show that GAGA achieves classification accuracies on par with or surpassing state-of-the-art methods while requiring only 1% of the data to be annotated, demonstrating its high efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07168 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Impact of α on Valid and Test Accuracy on ogbn-arxiv Dataset. Impact of LLMs. We conducted experiments with meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct (Llama 3.1 8B) and Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (Qwen 2.5 7B). The validation and test accuracies for each model on ogbn-arxiv dataset are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of semantic aggregation using annotation prototypes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visualization of the effect of annotation prototype projection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Friends and neighbors on the web.Social networks, 25(3):211– 230, 2003

    Lada A Adamic and Eytan Adar. Friends and neighbors on the web.Social networks, 25(3):211– 230, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Deriving machine attention from human rationales

    Yujia Bao, Shiyu Chang, Mo Yu, and Regina Barzilay. Deriving machine attention from human rationales. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09367, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  4. [4]

    Active learning for graph embedding

    Hongyun Cai, Vincent W Zheng, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Active learning for graph embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.05085, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Graphllm: Boosting graph reasoning ability of large language model

    Ziwei Chai, Tianjie Zhang, Liang Wu, Kaiqiao Han, Xiaohai Hu, Xuanwen Huang, and Yang Yang. Graphllm: Boosting graph reasoning ability of large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05845, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Graph neural networks for link prediction with subgraph sketching

    Benjamin Paul Chamberlain, Sergey Shirobokov, Emanuele Rossi, Fabrizio Frasca, Thomas Markovich, Nils Hammerla, Michael M Bronstein, and Max Hansmire. Graph neural networks for link prediction with subgraph sketching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15486, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs

    Zhikai Chen, Haitao Mao, Hang Li, Wei Jin, Hongzhi Wen, Xiaochi Wei, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, et al. Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 25(2):42–61, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Label-free node classification on graphs with large language models (llms)

    Zhikai Chen, Haitao Mao, Hongzhi Wen, Haoyu Han, Wei Jin, Haiyang Zhang, Hui Liu, and Jiliang Tang. Label-free node classification on graphs with large language models (llms). arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04668, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Node feature extraction by self-supervised multi-scale neighborhood prediction

    Eli Chien, Wei-Cheng Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Hsiang-Fu Yu, Jiong Zhang, Olgica Milenkovic, and Inderjit S Dhillon. Node feature extraction by self-supervised multi-scale neighborhood prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00064, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Less is more: Attention supervision with counterfactuals for text classification

    Seungtaek Choi, Haeju Park, Jinyoung Yeo, and Seung-won Hwang. Less is more: Attention supervision with counterfactuals for text classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6695–6704, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Human attention in visual question answering: Do humans and deep networks look at the same regions? Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 163:90–100, 2017

    Abhishek Das, Harsh Agrawal, Larry Zitnick, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Human attention in visual question answering: Do humans and deep networks look at the same regions? Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 163:90–100, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Simteg: A frustratingly simple approach improves textual graph learning

    Keyu Duan, Qian Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, Shuicheng Yan, Wei Tsang Ooi, Qizhe Xie, and Junxian He. Simteg: A frustratingly simple approach improves textual graph learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02565, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Going beyond xai: A systematic survey for explanation-guided learning

    Yuyang Gao, Siyi Gu, Junji Jiang, Sungsoo Ray Hong, Dazhou Yu, and Liang Zhao. Going beyond xai: A systematic survey for explanation-guided learning. ACM Comput. Surv., 56(7), apr 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Gnes: Learning to explain graph neural networks

    Yuyang Gao, Tong Sun, Rishab Bhatt, Dazhou Yu, Sungsoo Hong, and Liang Zhao. Gnes: Learning to explain graph neural networks. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 131–140. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Res: A robust framework for guiding visual explanation

    Yuyang Gao, Tong Steven Sun, Guangji Bai, Siyi Gu, Sungsoo Ray Hong, and Zhao Liang. Res: A robust framework for guiding visual explanation. In proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 432–442, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Saliency learning: Teaching the model where to pay attention

    Reza Ghaeini, Xiaoli Z Fern, Hamed Shahbazi, and Prasad Tadepalli. Saliency learning: Teaching the model where to pay attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08649, 2019. 10

    1902 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Citeseer: An automatic citation indexing system

    C Lee Giles, Kurt D Bollacker, and Steve Lawrence. Citeseer: An automatic citation indexing system. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Digital libraries, pages 89–98, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    Lee Giles, Kurt D

    C. Lee Giles, Kurt D. Bollacker, and Steve Lawrence. Citeseer: an automatic citation indexing system. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, DL ’98, page 89–98, New York, NY , USA, 1998. Association for Computing Machinery

    1998

  12. [20]

    A fundamental model with stable interpretability for traffic forecasting

    Xiaochuan Gou, Lijie Hu, Di Wang, and Xiangliang Zhang. A fundamental model with stable interpretability for traffic forecasting. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Geo-Privacy and Data Utility for Smart Societies, pages 10–13, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks

    Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 855–864, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Harnessing explanations: Llm-to-lm interpreter for enhanced text-attributed graph representation learning

    Xiaoxin He, Xavier Bresson, Thomas Laurent, Adam Perold, Yann LeCun, and Bryan Hooi. Harnessing explanations: Llm-to-lm interpreter for enhanced text-attributed graph representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19523, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Multitask asynchronous metalearning for few-shot anomalous node detection in dynamic networks

    Yifan Hong, Chuanqi Shi, Junyang Chen, Huan Wang, and Di Wang. Multitask asynchronous metalearning for few-shot anomalous node detection in dynamic networks. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Semi-supervised concept bottleneck models

    Lijie Hu, Tianhao Huang, Huanyi Xie, Xilin Gong, Chenyang Ren, Zhengyu Hu, Lu Yu, Ping Ma, and Di Wang. Semi-supervised concept bottleneck models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18992, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Faithful interpre- tation for graph neural networks

    Lijie Hu, Tianhao Huang, Lu Yu, Wanyu Lin, Tianhang Zheng, and Di Wang. Faithful interpre- tation for graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06950, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Towards multi-dimensional explanation alignment for medical classification

    Lijie Hu, Songning Lai, Wenshuo Chen, Hongru Xiao, Hongbin Lin, Lu Yu, Jingfeng Zhang, and Di Wang. Towards multi-dimensional explanation alignment for medical classification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:129640–129671, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Seat: stable and explainable attention

    Lijie Hu, Yixin Liu, Ninghao Liu, Mengdi Huai, Lichao Sun, and Di Wang. Seat: stable and explainable attention. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 12907–12915, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Improving interpretation faithfulness for vision transformers

    Lijie Hu, Yixin Liu, Ninghao Liu, Mengdi Huai, Lichao Sun, and Di Wang. Improving interpretation faithfulness for vision transformers. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Editable concept bottleneck models

    Lijie Hu, Chenyang Ren, Zhengyu Hu, Hongbin Lin, Cheng-Long Wang, Hui Xiong, Jingfeng Zhang, and Di Wang. Editable concept bottleneck models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15476, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Towards stable and explainable attention mechanisms

    Lijie Hu, Xinhai Wang, Yixin Liu, Ninghao Liu, Mengdi Huai, Lichao Sun, and Di Wang. Towards stable and explainable attention mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovec. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:22118–22133, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Gpt-gnn: Generative pre-training of graph neural networks

    Ziniu Hu, Yuxiao Dong, Kuansan Wang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Yizhou Sun. Gpt-gnn: Generative pre-training of graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 1857–1867, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Learning to faithfully rationalize by construction

    Sarthak Jain, Sarah Wiegreffe, Yuval Pinter, and Byron C Wallace. Learning to faithfully rationalize by construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00115, 2020. 11

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Attentive graph-based text-aware preference modeling for top-n recommendation

    Ming-Hao Juan, Pu-Jen Cheng, Hui-Neng Hsu, and Pin-Hsin Hsiao. Attentive graph-based text-aware preference modeling for top-n recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12976, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A new status index derived from sociometric analysis

    Leo Katz. A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18(1):39–43, 1953

    1953

  29. [37]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Variational graph auto-encoders

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Variational graph auto-encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Faithful vision- language interpretation via concept bottleneck models

    Songning Lai, Lijie Hu, Junxiao Wang, Laure Berti-Equille, and Di Wang. Faithful vision- language interpretation via concept bottleneck models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Training graph neural networks with 1000 layers

    Guohao Li, Matthias Müller, Bernard Ghanem, and Vladlen Koltun. Training graph neural networks with 1000 layers. In International conference on machine learning, pages 6437–6449. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Evaluating graph neural networks for link prediction: Current pitfalls and new benchmarking

    Juanhui Li, Harry Shomer, Haitao Mao, Shenglai Zeng, Yao Ma, Neil Shah, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. Evaluating graph neural networks for link prediction: Current pitfalls and new benchmarking. In Neural Information Processing Systems NeurIPS, Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    The link prediction problem for social net- works

    David Liben-Nowell and Jon Kleinberg. The link prediction problem for social net- works. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 556–559, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Learning what and where to attend

    Drew Linsley, Dan Shiebler, Sven Eberhardt, and Thomas Serre. Learning what and where to attend. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.08819, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Taad: Time-varying adversarial anomaly detection in dynamic graphs

    Guanghua Liu, Jia Zhang, Peng Lv, Chenlong Wang, Huan Wang, and Di Wang. Taad: Time-varying adversarial anomaly detection in dynamic graphs. Information Processing & Management, 62(1):103912, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    One for all: Towards training one graph model for all classification tasks

    Hao Liu, Jiarui Feng, Lecheng Kong, Ningyue Liang, Dacheng Tao, Yixin Chen, and Muhan Zhang. One for all: Towards training one graph model for all classification tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00149, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Revisiting link prediction: A data perspective

    Haitao Mao, Juanhui Li, Harry Shomer, Bingheng Li, Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Tong Zhao, Neil Shah, and Jiliang Tang. Revisiting link prediction: A data perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00793, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Automating the construction of internet portals with machine learning

    Andrew Kachites McCallum, Kamal Nigam, Jason Rennie, and Kristie Seymore. Automating the construction of internet portals with machine learning. Information Retrieval, 3:127–163, 2000

    2000

  40. [48]

    Link prediction via matrix factorization

    Aditya Krishna Menon and Charles Elkan. Link prediction via matrix factorization. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2011, Athens, Greece, September 5-9, 2011, Proceedings, Part II 22, pages 437–452. Springer, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Embedding human knowledge into deep neural network via attention map

    Masahiro Mitsuhara, Hiroshi Fukui, Yusuke Sakashita, Takanori Ogata, Tsubasa Hirakawa, Takayoshi Yamashita, and Hironobu Fujiyoshi. Embedding human knowledge into deep neural network via attention map. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.03540, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks.Physical review E, 64(2):025102, 2001

    Mark EJ Newman. Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks.Physical review E, 64(2):025102, 2001

    2001

  43. [51]

    Distilling large language models for text-attributed graph learning

    Bo Pan, Zheng Zhang, Yifei Zhang, Yuntong Hu, and Liang Zhao. Distilling large language models for text-attributed graph learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12022, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Exploring human-like attention supervision in visual question answering

    Tingting Qiao, Jianfeng Dong, and Duanqing Xu. Exploring human-like attention supervision in visual question answering. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32(1), 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Disentangled representation learning with large language models for text-attributed graphs

    Yijian Qin, Xin Wang, Ziwei Zhang, and Wenwu Zhu. Disentangled representation learning with large language models for text-attributed graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18152, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Right for the right rea- sons: Training differentiable models by constraining their explanations

    Andrew Slavin Ross, Michael C Hughes, and Finale Doshi-Velez. Right for the right rea- sons: Training differentiable models by constraining their explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03717, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Saliency guided experience packing for replay in continual learning

    Gobinda Saha and Kaushik Roy. Saliency guided experience packing for replay in continual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 5273–5283, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Collective classification in network data

    Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Galligher, and Tina Eliassi- Rad. Collective classification in network data. AI magazine, 29(3):93–93, 2008

    2008

  49. [57]

    Supervising model attention with human explanations for robust natural language inference

    Joe Stacey, Yonatan Belinkov, and Marek Rei. Supervising model attention with human explanations for robust natural language inference. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36(10), pages 11349–11357, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Do human rationales improve machine explanations? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13714, 2019

    Julia Strout, Ye Zhang, and Raymond J Mooney. Do human rationales improve machine explanations? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13714, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Scalable and adaptive graph neural networks with self-label-enhanced training

    Chuxiong Sun, Hongming Gu, and Jie Hu. Scalable and adaptive graph neural networks with self-label-enhanced training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09376, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Large language models as topological structure enhancers for text-attributed graphs

    Shengyin Sun, Yuxiang Ren, Chen Ma, and Xuecang Zhang. Large language models as topological structure enhancers for text-attributed graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14324, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timo- thée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Neural discrete representation learning

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    Graph attention networks, 2018

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Inductive graph unlearning

    Cheng-Long Wang, Mengdi Huai, and Di Wang. Inductive graph unlearning. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 3205–3222, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Equivariant and stable positional encoding for more powerful graph neural networks

    Haorui Wang, Haoteng Yin, Muhan Zhang, and Pan Li. Equivariant and stable positional encoding for more powerful graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00199, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Epm: Evolutionary perception method for anomaly detection in noisy dynamic graphs

    Huan Wang, Junyang Chen, Yirui Wu, Victor CM Leung, and Di Wang. Epm: Evolutionary perception method for anomaly detection in noisy dynamic graphs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    Persistent local homology in graph learning

    Minghua Wang, HU Yan, Ziyun Huang, Di Wang, and Jinhui Xu. Persistent local homology in graph learning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers, 2020

    Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers, 2020

    2020

  61. [69]

    Neural common neighbor with completion for link prediction

    Xiyuan Wang, Haotong Yang, and Muhan Zhang. Neural common neighbor with completion for link prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00890, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Preserving node-level privacy in graph neural networks

    Zihang Xiang, Tianhao Wang, and Di Wang. Preserving node-level privacy in graph neural networks. In 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 4714–4732. IEEE, 2024. 13

    2024

  63. [71]

    A comprehensive study on text-attributed graphs: Benchmarking and rethinking

    Hao Yan, Chaozhuo Li, Ruosong Long, Chao Yan, Jianan Zhao, Wenwen Zhuang, Jun Yin, Peiyan Zhang, Weihao Han, Hao Sun, et al. A comprehensive study on text-attributed graphs: Benchmarking and rethinking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:17238– 17264, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Network rep- resentation learning with rich text information

    Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Deli Zhao, Maosong Sun, and Edward Y Chang. Network rep- resentation learning with rich text information. In IJCAI, volume 2015, pages 2111–2117, 2015

    2015

  65. [73]

    Graphformers: Gnn-nested transformers for representation learning on textual graph

    Junhan Yang, Zheng Liu, Shitao Xiao, Chaozhuo Li, Defu Lian, Sanjay Agrawal, Amit Singh, Guangzhong Sun, and Xing Xie. Graphformers: Gnn-nested transformers for representation learning on textual graph. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:28798– 28810, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Deep bidirectional language-knowledge graph pretraining

    Michihiro Yasunaga, Antoine Bosselut, Hongyu Ren, Xikun Zhang, Christopher D Manning, Percy S Liang, and Jure Leskovec. Deep bidirectional language-knowledge graph pretraining. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:37309–37323, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Natural language is all a graph needs

    Ruosong Ye, Caiqi Zhang, Runhui Wang, Shuyuan Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. Natural language is all a graph needs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07134, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:28877–28888, 2021

    Chengxuan Ying, Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Di He, Yanming Shen, and Tie-Yan Liu. Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:28877–28888, 2021

    2021

  69. [77]

    Empower text-attributed graphs learning with large language models (llms)

    Jianxiang Yu, Yuxiang Ren, Chenghua Gong, Jiaqi Tan, Xiang Li, and Xuecang Zhang. Empower text-attributed graphs learning with large language models (llms). arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09872, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Neo-gnns: Neighborhood overlap-aware graph neural networks for link prediction

    Seongjun Yun, Seoyoon Kim, Junhyun Lee, Jaewoo Kang, and Hyunwoo J Kim. Neo-gnns: Neighborhood overlap-aware graph neural networks for link prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:13683–13694, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    Fast multi-resolution trans- former fine-tuning for extreme multi-label text classification

    Jiong Zhang, Wei-Cheng Chang, Hsiang-Fu Yu, and Inderjit Dhillon. Fast multi-resolution trans- former fine-tuning for extreme multi-label text classification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:7267–7280, 2021

    2021

  72. [80]

    Labeling trick: A theory of using graph neural networks for multi-node representation learning

    Muhan Zhang, Pan Li, Yinglong Xia, Kai Wang, and Long Jin. Labeling trick: A theory of using graph neural networks for multi-node representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:9061–9073, 2021

    2021

  73. [81]

    A multi- classification division-aggregation framework for fake news detection

    Wen Zhang, Haitao Fu, Huan Wang, Zhiguo Gong, Pan Zhou, and Di Wang. A multi- classification division-aggregation framework for fake news detection. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Magi: Multi-annotated explanation-guided learning

    Yifei Zhang, Siyi Gu, Yuyang Gao, Bo Pan, Xiaofeng Yang, and Liang Zhao. Magi: Multi-annotated explanation-guided learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1977–1987, 2023

    1977

  75. [83]

    Interpretable visual question answering by visual grounding from attention supervision mining

    Yundong Zhang, Juan Carlos Niebles, and Alvaro Soto. Interpretable visual question answering by visual grounding from attention supervision mining. In 2019 ieee winter conference on applications of computer vision (wacv), pages 349–357. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    Learning on large-scale text-attributed graphs via variational inference

    Jianan Zhao, Meng Qu, Chaozhuo Li, Hao Yan, Qian Liu, Rui Li, Xing Xie, and Jian Tang. Learning on large-scale text-attributed graphs via variational inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14709, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Fine-grained sentiment analysis with faithful attention

    Ruiqi Zhong, Steven Shao, and Kathleen McKeown. Fine-grained sentiment analysis with faithful attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06870, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Gear: Graph-based evidence aggregating and reasoning for fact verification

    Jie Zhou, Xu Han, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Lifeng Wang, Changcheng Li, and Maosong Sun. Gear: Graph-based evidence aggregating and reasoning for fact verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01843, 2019. 14

    1908 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Predicting missing links via local information

    Tao Zhou, Linyuan Lü, and Yi-Cheng Zhang. Predicting missing links via local information. The European Physical Journal B, 71:623–630, 2009

    2009

  80. [88]

    Textgnn: Improving text encoder via graph neural network in sponsored search

    Jason Zhu, Yanling Cui, Yuming Liu, Hao Sun, Xue Li, Markus Pelger, Tianqi Yang, Liangjie Zhang, Ruofei Zhang, and Huasha Zhao. Textgnn: Improving text encoder via graph neural network in sponsored search. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 2848–2857, 2021

    2021

  81. [89]

    Efficient tuning and inference for large language models on textual graphs

    Yun Zhu, Yaoke Wang, Haizhou Shi, and Siliang Tang. Efficient tuning and inference for large language models on textual graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15569, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Neural bellman-ford networks: A general graph neural network framework for link prediction

    Zhaocheng Zhu, Zuobai Zhang, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, and Jian Tang. Neural bellman-ford networks: A general graph neural network framework for link prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:29476–29490, 2021. 15 A Additional Experimental Details A.1 Data...

    2021

  83. [91]

    learn low-dimensional node embeddings to predict link likelihood. GNN methods: Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) [37], Graph Attention Network (GAT) [63], GraphSAGE (SAGE) [59], and Graph Autoencoder (GAE) [38] integrate multi-hop graph structures via message passing. GNN + Pa...

    2023

  84. [92]

    Health & Personal Care, 3) Beauty, 4) Sports & Outdoors, 5) Books, 6) Patio, Lawn & Garden, 7) Toys & Games, 8) CDs & Vinyl, 9) Cell Phones & Accessories, 10) Grocery & Gourmet Food, 11) Arts, Crafts & Sewing, 12) Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry, 13) Electronics,

  85. [93]

    Movies & TV , 15) Software, 16) Video Games, 17) Automotive, 18) Pet Supplies, 19) Office Products, 20) Industrial & Scientific, 21) Musical Instruments, 22) Tools & Home Improvement, 23) Magazine Subscriptions, 24) Baby Products, 25) NAN, 26) Appliances,

  86. [94]

    Kitchen & Dining, 28) Collectibles & Fine Art, 29) All Beauty, 30) Luxury Beauty, 31) Amazon Fashion, 32) Computers, 33) All Electronics, 34) Purchase Circles, 35) MP3 Players & Accessories, 36) Gift Cards, 37) Office & School Supplies, 38) Home Improvement, 39) Camera & Photo...

  87. [95]

    And you should tell me what knowledge is needed to understand the concepts

    Kindle Store, 45) Kindle Apps, 46) Furniture & Decor? Give 5 likely categories as a comma-separated list ordered from most to least likely, list the most important concepts. And you should tell me what knowledge is needed to understand the concepts. After all, you should provi...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.