Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that neither fully connected attention nor fixed-link attention is optimal for LLMs on graphs, and that training with an intermediate attention window that includes some topology transfers cleanly to full attention at…

desk verdict Real attention-level observations for LLMs on graphs, but the headline transfer recipe lacks the control needed to separate topology from context size. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02130 v1 pith:B5S46HPM submitted 2025-05-04 cs.AI cs.CL

Zhong Guan , Likang Wu , Hongke Zhao , Ming He , Jianpin Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords attentionmechanismsgraph-structureddatalargelanguagemodelswindowGlobalLinkageHorizonnodeclassificationsinkgraphtopology
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

This paper is an empirical study of how transformer attention in large language models behaves when the input is graph-structured text: a target node plus its neighbors written out as sentences. It argues that LLMs learn to notice nodes and to attend from text to nodes, but fail to model edges between nodes, so their attention is poorly matched to graph topology. The paper proposes the Global Linkage Horizon, a mask that controls how far a node token can attend to other node tokens, and shows that neither the fully connected view of LLMs nor the fixed-neighbor view of GNNs is best. Training with an intermediate window that contains some topology improves node classification, and a model trained at a small window can be deployed at the full window without retraining.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Global Linkage Horizon, a masking parameter $k \in \{0,\dots,2L\}$ that defines, within one attention layer, which node tokens may attend to which other node tokens. It interpolates between the fixed adjacency of a GNN ($k=1$) and the fully connected window of an LLM ($k=4$ for $L=2$), turning the model's visible perspective on the graph into an experimental variable. The argument is carried by two measurement tools: four disruption levels (I--IV) that scramble links with increasing severity, and density and heatmap statistics of attention scores before and after fine-tuning. The named phenomena "Attention Sink" and "Skewed Line Sink" are used to explain why node-to-node attention fails to follow graph structure.

What would settle it

Run the same four disruption levels on a GNN baseline with identical node sampling: if the GNN's accuracy is flat across levels I and II on Wikics or Pubmed, the yardstick for "ignoring topology" fails. Alternatively, on a dataset with random node text but real links, if an LLM's accuracy drops at levels I or II, then LLMs do use connectivity, contradicting Finding 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using disruption experiments and attention-score statistics on four node-classification datasets, the paper finds that when link structure is progressively scrambled, most fine-tuned LLMs barely change accuracy at low disruption levels, indicating that they do not effectively use connectivity. Attention heatmaps show sink positions that attract disproportionate attention, plus a newly named "Skewed Line Sink," rather than topology-aware patterns. The constructive result is that the attention window, defined by the Global Linkage Horizon $k$ (from $0$ to $2L$ for $L$ sampled hops), is tunable: intermediate $k$ values that expose some real links outperform both full connectivity $k=4$ and the GNN-style $k=1$ window. Small-to-large transfer also works: training at $k=2$ or $k=3$ and evaluating at $k=4$ beats training and evaluating at $k=4$.

Load-bearing premise

The disruption experiments assume that a model genuinely using graph links will lose accuracy monotonically as the links are increasingly scrambled, and that GNNs behave this way; the paper asserts this without demonstrating it, and if the assumption is false, the conclusion that LLMs ignore connectivity is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LLMs are trained with a Global Linkage Horizon of $k=2$ or $k=3$, node-classification accuracy on these benchmarks can exceed both the standard fully connected setting and the GNN-style fixed-link setting.
  • Small-to-large transfer means the method is deployment-friendly: training with a masked attention window costs nothing extra at inference, because the model then runs with normal full attention.
  • The two named attention artifacts give concrete targets for future corrections: suppressing attention sinks and skewed-line sinks on graph inputs may close part of the performance gap to GNNs.
  • The weak response to low-level connectivity disruption on most datasets implies that current instruction-tuned LLM gains on graphs are driven mostly by node text, not by links.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension would be to use uninformative node text, such as random descriptions, while keeping real links: if a fine-tuned LLM still solves the task, the paper's text-driven reading is supported, and if it fails, the null disruption results may be an artifact of redundant text.
  • The small-to-large transfer result may generalize to other structured inputs, such as tables or code, where restricting early-layer attention to local dependencies during training could act as a regularizer.
  • The "Skewed Line Sink" suggests the model latches onto sequence position or path order; an explicit test that randomizes node order without changing topology would show whether this artifact comes from the decoder's causal bias rather than from graph structure.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an empirical, attention-centric study of how LLMs process graph-structured data. Using LLaMA2-7B fine-tuned with LLaGA-style instructions on four node-classification datasets, it analyzes attention score distributions before and after fine-tuning, performs connectivity-disruption experiments, visualizes node-node and text-node attention matrices, and varies a 'global linkage horizon' k to restrict attention windows. The paper claims three main findings: (1) LLMs recognize graph data but do not effectively use connectivity information; (2) LLM attention does not match an ideal structural pattern, exhibiting Attention Sinks and a graph-specific 'Skewed Line Sink'; and (3) neither fully connected attention nor fixed connectivity is optimal, with intermediate graph-hop attention windows being best for training and transferring well to fully connected inference. The paper also includes supplementary experiments with Vicuna-7B and LLaMA3-7B, template comparisons, and per-layer attention visualizations.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a useful empirical contribution: it is one of the first studies to inspect LLM attention behavior on graph-structured data at the level of node-text and node-node interactions, it ships source code, and it tests multiple datasets and base models. The disruption methodology and the separation of text-node from node-node attention are valuable lenses for the LLM-for-graphs community, and the central qualitative observation that connectivity disruption often does not change LLM accuracy is a credible, falsifiable claim. However, the prescriptive Finding 3 rests on a comparison that confounds graph-topology restriction with context-size reduction, and the diagnostic Finding 1 lacks the GNN control needed to interpret null disruption results as 'failure to use connectivity.' These gaps are fixable with additional experiments, but they are load-bearing for the headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section A2, Table 2] The conclusion that LLMs 'fail to effectively utilize connectivity information' relies on the premise that a model genuinely using graph connectivity would show monotonically decreasing accuracy as disruption level increases. The paper asserts this premise in the sentence 'GNNs that passed the WL-test have been continuously decreasing' but provides neither a GNN baseline experiment nor a citation for this behavior, and the WL-test is not defined. Without such a control, the null results on Wikics, Pubmed, and Amazon-Ratings can be explained by the task being largely solvable from node text alone, or by the higher disruption levels (III-IV) damaging position/format rather than topology. A fair test requires running GNN baselines through the same disruption protocol and demonstrating that they degrade monotonically under levels I-IV; otherwise the interpretation of the null result is unsupported.
  2. [Section C, Tables 3 and 4, Figure 6] The attention-window manipulation varies two quantities simultaneously: the set of visible nodes is constrained by graph distance (k), and the number of visible tokens is much smaller at low k. The paper reports no random-mask control that fixes the per-row visibility count or the total context size while removing topological information. Consequently, the experiments support only the weaker conclusion that 'training with limited windows helps,' not the stronger claim that 'training with graph-hop windows helps because of topology.' The authors' own explanation for large-to-small transfer ('reduced level of complexity and fewer distractions') is a context-size/regularization account rather than a graph-topology account. A control with random attention masks matched to the same visible-set size is needed to establish that topology, not reduced context, drives the improvements.
  3. [Table 4 and Appendix L] The claimed small-to-large transfer advantage is not consistently supported by the reported numbers. On Wikics (Table 4), training at k3_unidi and testing at k4_unidi gives 77.82 versus 77.49 for direct k4 training, a 0.33-point gain with overlapping standard deviations, while training at k2_unidi and testing at k4 gives 74.97, which is worse. Appendix L shows a larger gain on Roman-Empire (k2_unidi to k4_unidi: 82.66 versus 80.73), but the effect is absent or reversed on Amazon-Ratings, and no Pubmed transfer table is provided. The statement that 'we can achieve better performance at inference time with k=4 by training at k=2 or k=3' is too strong given the mixed evidence; the claim should be qualified per dataset with significance testing.
  4. [Section B1, Figure 3] The diagnosis of a 'failure to adapt to graph topology' assumes an ideal attention pattern in which central/highly-connected nodes receive higher attention than peripheral nodes and attention decays hierarchically. This ideal is asserted rather than validated; the paper does not show that models with attention closer to this pattern achieve better task performance. The observed U-shaped and positional attention curves are interesting as observations, but labeling them as deficient requires an independent argument connecting the normative pattern to graph-task performance. In addition, the paper does not report a quantitative check that the fixed-position and shuffling procedure fully eliminates position-type confounds between first-order and second-order nodes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1 and Appendix E] The t-tests and KS tests are run on very large collections of attention scores; p-values alone are not informative. Please report effect sizes, and interpret the small JS divergence values (0.006 to 0.079) when claiming that attention distributions changed 'significantly.'
  2. [Appendix A, Table 5] There is a typo: 'use embedding Ture' should be 'True.' The appendix also does not describe how the attention-window mask is implemented (which layers are masked, how bidirectional masking is realized in a causal decoder-only model, and how k=0 would be defined). These details are needed for reproducibility.
  3. [Figure 3 caption and Figure 6 caption] The phrase 'slash trend' is unclear; specify whether it means a decreasing trend, a diagonal pattern, or something else. Also, 'caucal' in Figure 6 should be 'causal.'
  4. [Appendix J] The prompts for Pubmed and Wikics contain stray '::' characters and an extra question mark. The dataset name is also written inconsistently as 'Wikics' and 'WikiCS' across the paper and the dataset appendix.
  5. [Section 4, Findings] The sentence 'When shifting to a narrower perspective, the model benefits from a reduced level of complexity and fewer distractions, leading to better.' is incomplete and should be finished.
  6. [Section C1] The text says k ranges from 0 to 2L, but Table 3 reports only k=1 to 4. Please explain why k=0 is not included in the main results, or include it for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: all headline findings are observed experimental outcomes, not quantities defined in terms of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. Section A1 compares attention-score distributions before and after fine-tuning using t-tests, KS tests, and JS divergence; Section A2 measures accuracy under increasing connectivity perturbation; Section B contrasts observed attention maps with an author-defined ideal pattern; Section C sweeps the visibility horizon k and reports accuracy and transfer results. None of these steps fits a parameter to a target and then renames that fit as a prediction, and no equation defines one reported quantity in terms of another. The closest validity concern is in the disruption experiments, where the paper asserts 'GNNs that passed the WL-test have been continuously decreasing' without showing or citing evidence; if that premise fails, the null perturbation result may reflect text-only solvability rather than failure to use connectivity. That is an unverified assumption and a missing-control issue, not circularity. Similarly, the small-to-large transfer claim in Section C varies both topological visibility and context size at once, so the specific attribution to graph topology is underdetermined without a random-mask control matched for visible-token count; again, this is an experimental confound, not a self-referential reduction. The only self-citations (Guan et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2025) appear in the related-work listing and do not supply any load-bearing premise, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz. No step can be quoted that reduces by construction to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

This paper is an empirical study; it does not fit a mathematical model with free constants to data. Experimental settings (node sampling 8x8, L=2, learning rate 1e-4, epochs=1, prompts) are design choices, not fitted parameters; they are documented in Appendix A and J. The axioms listed capture the paper's unstated or lightly stated premises about how to interpret disruption experiments, ideal attention, and the attention-window intervention.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A model that effectively uses graph connectivity should show monotonically decreasing accuracy as connectivity is increasingly perturbed.
    Invoked in Section A2 (Table 2) to interpret the null result on Wikics/Pubmed as evidence that LLMs do not use link structure. The paper provides no theory or GNN baseline to justify monotonic degradation; rich node features or heterophily could make specific perturbations harmless.
  • ad hoc to paper An ideal attention distribution over graph nodes should concentrate on central/highly-connected nodes and decay hierarchically.
    Introduced in Section B1 and used to conclude that LLM attention 'does not adapt well' to graph structure. This is an asserted ideal, not derived from any principle or validated against task performance.
  • ad hoc to paper Restricting the attention window to k-hop neighborhoods controls only the topological visibility available to the model, isolating the effect of link structure rather than acting as a regularizer or curriculum.
    Used in Section C to attribute the performance differences between k values to the availability of topological information. The paper does not rule out regularization or sequence-length confounds; it offers a plausible explanation but no control condition (e.g., random neighborhood masking).
  • domain assumption LLaGA-style instruction tuning is a valid and representative way to fine-tune LLMs for node classification.
    The paper builds all experiments on LLaGA (Chen et al. 2024) and assumes conclusions transfer to other graph-tuning methods. No comparison with other instruction formats is made except template variations in Appendix K.
invented entities (2)
  • Skewed Line Sink
    purpose: Names the observed off-diagonal band of high attention in node-node attention matrices, claimed to be graph-specific.
    Introduced in Section B2 based on heatmaps (Figure 5). It is a descriptive label for an observed pattern in the authors' experiments, with no external falsifiable prediction yet; if other groups find it in different models or data it would gain independent evidence.
  • Global Linkage Horizon (GLH)
    purpose: Quantifies the visibility range of node tokens in the attention window; used as an experimental manipulation.
    Introduced in Section C as a definition (k from 0 to 2L). It is an operational metric, not a postulated entity with testable predictions outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5S46HPM

@misc{pith2026250502130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5S46HPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02130}
}
read the original abstract

Attention mechanisms are critical to the success of large language models (LLMs), driving significant advancements in multiple fields. However, for graph-structured data, which requires emphasis on topological connections, they fall short compared to message-passing mechanisms on fixed links, such as those employed by Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). This raises a question: ``Does attention fail for graphs in natural language settings?'' Motivated by these observations, we embarked on an empirical study from the perspective of attention mechanisms to explore how LLMs process graph-structured data. The goal is to gain deeper insights into the attention behavior of LLMs over graph structures. We uncovered unique phenomena regarding how LLMs apply attention to graph-structured data and analyzed these findings to improve the modeling of such data by LLMs. The primary findings of our research are: 1) While LLMs can recognize graph data and capture text-node interactions, they struggle to model inter-node relationships within graph structures due to inherent architectural constraints. 2) The attention distribution of LLMs across graph nodes does not align with ideal structural patterns, indicating a failure to adapt to graph topology nuances. 3) Neither fully connected attention nor fixed connectivity is optimal; each has specific limitations in its application scenarios. Instead, intermediate-state attention windows improve LLM training performance and seamlessly transition to fully connected windows during inference. Source code: \href{https://github.com/millioniron/LLM_exploration}{LLM4Exploration}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Attention distribution of different types of tokens before and after training. With Amazon-Ratings on the left, Roman-Empire in the middle, and Wikics on the right. The attention values have undergone log scaling and are plotted as a density distribution Figure. token to attend to all other tokens. Conversely, in GPT series models (Brown et al., 2020), a unidirectional causal mask is used, restricting each token to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The attention scores from neighboring nodes to the central node, both before and after training, were presented as mean values with standard deviations, using a 1:8 sampling ratio. and node tokens in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of all tokens to nodes attention. The x-coordinate refers to the relative position of the node token in the entire node list. We collected the attention scores of all tokens towards node tokens and plotted them in a line graph according to the relative position of nodes within the instructions. Upper: the mean values of attention scores from nodes(Querys) to nodes(Keys). Lower: the mean values of attent… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Padding and Random Shuffling to ensure fixed sequence length and position. This minimizes interference with attention scores for other reasons. “Skewed Line Sink.” The emergence of “Attention sink” and “Skewed Line Sink” phenomena interferes with the proper allocation …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of attention score interaction matrix(Nodes). Left: The left panel displays the attention interaction matrix between all nodes (1 central node + 8 first-order nodes + 8*8 second-order nodes), averaged across all heads and layers. Right: The right panel sho…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of different global linkage horizon k. From left to right, the images represent k=1 to 4. To demonstrate the field of view of GNNs, the image for k=1 is depicted bidirectionally, while the rest are shown unidirectionally. · [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Attention score interaction matrix(Nodes) in Wikics. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Attention score interaction matrix(Nodes) in Roman-Empire. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Attention score interaction matrix(Nodes) in Amazon-Ratings. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Attention score interaction matrix(Text) in Wikics. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Attention score interaction matrix(Text) in Roman-Empire. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Attention score interaction matrix(Text) in Amazon-Ratings. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of the average attention(Attention Score among First Nodes(with child nodes)) in Amazon-Ratings((1+8)*2). 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visualization of the average attention(Attention Score among First Nodes(with child nodes)) in Roman-Empire((1+8)*2). 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visualization of the average attention(Attention Score among First Nodes(with child nodes)) in Wikics((1+8)*2). 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Visualization of the average attention(Center nodes and First-order nodes) in Amazon-Ratings. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Visualization of the average attention(Center nodes and First-order nodes) in Roman-Empire. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Visualization of the average attention(Center nodes and First-order nodes) in Wikics. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From Trajectories to Prefixes: Reusing Teacher Trajectories via Replayed Prefixes and Online Continuation

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Replaying teacher trajectory prefixes and explicitly optimizing the historical prefix tokens improves small-model agent success rates over distillation and response-only GRPO baselines in TextCraft, BabyAI, and ALFWorld.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Star attention: Effi- cient llm inference over long sequences

    Acharya, S., Jia, F., and Ginsburg, B. Star attention: Effi- cient llm inference over long sequences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17116,

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    Langtopo: aligning language descriptions of graphs with tokenized topological modeling

    Guan, Z., Zhao, H., Wu, L., He, M., and Fan, J. Langtopo: aligning language descriptions of graphs with tokenized topological modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13250,

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    and Hooi, B

    He, Y . and Hooi, B. Unigraph: Learning a cross-domain graph foundation model from natural language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13630,

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    T., Kumar, A., Glass, J., Ratner, A., Lee, C.-Y ., Krishna, R., et al

    Hsieh, C.-Y ., Chuang, Y .-S., Li, C.-L., Wang, Z., Le, L. T., Kumar, A., Glass, J., Ratner, A., Lee, C.-Y ., Krishna, R., et al. Found in the middle: Calibrating positional attention bias improves long context utilization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16008,

    arXiv

  5. [7]

    Can gnn be good adapter for llms? In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 , pp

    Huang, X., Han, K., Yang, Y ., Bao, D., Tao, Q., Chai, Z., and Zhu, Q. Can gnn be good adapter for llms? In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 , pp. 893–904,

    work page 2024

  6. [9]

    Conv-basis: A new paradigm for efficient attention in- ference and gradient computation in transformers

    9 Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data Liang, Y ., Liu, H., Shi, Z., Song, Z., Xu, Z., and Yin, J. Conv-basis: A new paradigm for efficient attention in- ference and gradient computation in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05219,

    arXiv

  7. [10]

    V ., Bondaschi, M., Nagle, A., Girish, A., Kim, H., Jaggi, M., and Gastpar, M

    Makkuva, A. V ., Bondaschi, M., Nagle, A., Girish, A., Kim, H., Jaggi, M., and Gastpar, M. Attention with markov: A curious case of single-layer transformers. In ICML 2024 Workshop on Mechanistic Interpretability,

    work page 2024

  8. [11]

    and Cangea, C

    Mernyei, P. and Cangea, C. Wiki-cs: A wikipedia-based benchmark for graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.02901,

    arXiv 2007

Show all 28 references
  1. [13]

    and Zhang, S

    Ruan, T. and Zhang, S. Towards understanding how atten- tion mechanism works in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18288,

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Prog- prompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models

    Singh, I., Blukis, V ., Mousavian, A., Goyal, A., Xu, D., Tremblay, J., Fox, D., Thomason, J., and Garg, A. Prog- prompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 11523–11530. IEEE,

    2023

  3. [15]

    Large language mod- els as topological structure enhancers for text-attributed graphs

    Sun, S., Ren, Y ., Ma, C., and Zhang, X. Large language mod- els as topological structure enhancers for text-attributed graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14324,

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models

    Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y ., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 ,

    arXiv

  5. [18]

    Yu, Z., Wang, Z., Fu, Y ., Shi, H., Shaikh, K., and Lin, Y . C. Unveiling and harnessing hidden attention sinks: En- hancing large language models without training through attention calibration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15765,

    arXiv

  6. [19]

    Hierarchical compression of text-rich graphs via large language mod- els

    Zhang, S., Zheng, D., Zhang, J., Zhu, Q., Adeshina, S., Faloutsos, C., Karypis, G., Sun, Y ., et al. Hierarchical compression of text-rich graphs via large language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11884,

    arXiv

  7. [20]

    A comprehensive survey of large language models in management: Applications, chal- lenges, and opportunities

    Zhao, H., Wu, L., Shan, Y ., Jin, Z., Sui, Y ., Liu, Z., Feng, N., Li, M., and Zhang, W. A comprehensive survey of large language models in management: Applications, chal- lenges, and opportunities. Challenges, and Opportunities (August 14, 2024),

    2024

  8. [21]

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

    10 Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data Zhao, J., Qu, M., Li, C., Yan, H., Liu, Q., Li, R., Xie, X., and Tang, J. Learning on large-scale text-attributed graphs via variational inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14709,

    arXiv

  9. [22]

    Llm as gnn: Graph vocabulary learning for graph foundation model

    Zhu, X., Xue, H., Zhao, Z., Jin, M., Xu, W., Huang, J., Wang, Q., Zhou, K., and Zhang, Y . Llm as gnn: Graph vocabulary learning for graph foundation model. openre- view, 2024a. Zhu, Y ., Wang, Y ., Shi, H., and Tang, S. Efficient tuning and inference for large language models...

    arXiv

  10. [23]

    The statistical metrics of each dataset are shown in the following Table

    and Roman-Empire (Platonov et al., 2023), as well as homogeneous graph datasets Pubmed and Wi- kiCS (Mernyei & Cangea, 2020). The statistical metrics of each dataset are shown in the following Table

    2023

  11. [24]

    Additional Related Work Recent advancements have delved into leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) within graph structure domains

    Statistics of datasets Roman-Empire Amazon-Ratings Wikics Pubmed nodes 22,662 24,492 11,701 19,717 edges 32,927 93,050 216,123 44,338 avg degree 2.91 7.60 36.89 4.49 node features 4096 4096 4096 4096 classes 18 5 10 3 edge homophily 0.05 0.38 - - adjusted homophily -0.05 0.14 ...

    2022

  12. [25]

    Meanwhile, Sun et al

    employs LLMs to forecast node ranking classifications and offers comprehensive insights to enrich the quality of GNN embeddings. Meanwhile, Sun et al. (2023) has exploited LLMs for generating pseudo-labels aimed at enhancing the representation of graph topologies. Moreover, th...

    2023

  13. [26]

    An interactive fusion of LLMs and GNNs is also presented by (Qiao et al., 2024)

    pioneers the use of instruction tuning based on LLMs to articulate graph structures and node characteristics, effectively addressing graph-related tasks. An interactive fusion of LLMs and GNNs is also presented by (Qiao et al., 2024). Despite these strides, LLMs face challenge...

    2024

  14. [27]

    Additionally, Kong et al

    implements a masked strategy for co-training LLMs and GNNs together, achieving robust generalization across diverse graphs and 12 Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data datasets. Additionally, Kong et al. (2024) investigates the cre...

    2024

  15. [28]

    Moreover, recent efforts have increasingly focused on designing modules from a more comprehensive perspective to achieve better performance

    utilizes a GNN model as an adapter working alongside LLMs for TAG tasks, which aids in task-specific fine-tuning via external access. Moreover, recent efforts have increasingly focused on designing modules from a more comprehensive perspective to achieve better performance. In...

    2024

  16. [2020]

    Llaga: Large language and graph assistant

    Chen, R., Zhao, T., Jaiswal, A., Shah, N., and Wang, Z. Llaga: Large language and graph assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08170, 2024a. Chen, R., Zhao, T., JAISW AL, A. K., Shah, N., and Wang, Z. Llaga: Large language and graph assistant. In Forty-first International Confer...

    arXiv

  17. [2021]

    Natural language is all a graph needs

    Ye, R., Zhang, C., Wang, R., Xu, S., and Zhang, Y . Natural language is all a graph needs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07134,

    arXiv

  18. [2022]

    Gofa: A generative one-for-all model for joint graph language modeling

    Kong, L., Feng, J., Liu, H., Huang, C., Huang, J., Chen, Y ., and Zhang, M. Gofa: A generative one-for-all model for joint graph language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09709,

    arXiv

  19. [2023]

    Login: A large language model consulted graph neural network training framework

    Qiao, Y ., Ao, X., Liu, Y ., Xu, J., Sun, X., and He, Q. Login: A large language model consulted graph neural network training framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13902,

    arXiv

  20. [2024]

    D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877–1901,

    1901

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.