Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Can LLMs Effectively Leverage Graph Structural Information through Prompts, and Why?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.16595 v4 pith:RLAQZNAZ submitted 2023-09-28 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords llmsgraphperformanceinformationpromptsstructuraldataprompt
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing attention for their capability to process graphs with rich text attributes, especially in a zero-shot fashion. Recent studies demonstrate that LLMs obtain decent text classification performance on common text-rich graph benchmarks, and the performance can be improved by appending encoded structural information as natural languages into prompts. We aim to understand why the incorporation of structural information inherent in graph data can improve the prediction performance of LLMs. First, we rule out the concern of data leakage by curating a novel leakage-free dataset and conducting a comparative analysis alongside a previously widely-used dataset. Second, as past work usually encodes the ego-graph by describing the graph structure in natural language, we ask the question: do LLMs understand the graph structure in accordance with the intent of the prompt designers? Third, we investigate why LLMs can improve their performance after incorporating structural information. Our exploration of these questions reveals that (i) there is no substantial evidence that the performance of LLMs is significantly attributed to data leakage; (ii) instead of understanding prompts as graph structures as intended by the prompt designers, LLMs tend to process prompts more as contextual paragraphs and (iii) the most efficient elements of the local neighborhood included in the prompt are phrases that are pertinent to the node label, rather than the graph structure.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Agentic Graph Token Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Agentic Graph Token (AGT) reasoning lets an LLM iteratively select graph views, encode them as tokens, and reason step-by-step, beating static graph-token and text-agent baselines on seven graph domains.

  2. Court of LLMs: Evidence-Augmented Generation via Multi-LLM Collaboration for Text-Attributed Graph Anomaly Detection

    cs.LG 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CoLL uses two specialized LLM 'prosecutors' and an LLM 'judge' to generate textual anomaly evidence, which a gated GNN then fuses with graph structure for state-of-the-art text-attributed graph anomaly detection.

  3. GraphICL: Unlocking Graph Learning Potential in LLMs through Structured Prompt Design

    cs.LG 2025-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 55-template prompt benchmark showing general LLMs can beat specialized graph LLMs and GNNs on node classification and link prediction, though the reported margins are inflated by test-set prompt selection.

  4. LLM Online Spatial-temporal Signal Reconstruction Under Noise

    cs.LG 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A GSP-based denoiser plus a GPT-4o mini prompted with neighbor values reconstructs missing graph signals under Gaussian noise, outperforming graph baselines in most tested settings.

Pith tools