Graph Data Management and Graph Machine Learning: Synergies and Opportunities

Arijit Khan; Xiangyu Ke; Yinghui Wu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 181 references

Graph Data Management and Graph Machine Learning: Synergies and Opportunities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graph data management and graph machine learning reinforce each other at every stage of the data pipeline, and this survey is the first to map the relationship end to end.

desk verdict A useful survey map of the GDM-GML intersection, but the 'first survey' claim needs either a search protocol or a softer wording. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00529 v1 pith:E5R63KUB submitted 2025-02-01 cs.DB

Arijit Khan , Xiangyu Ke , Yinghui Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DB

keywords graphdatamanagementmachinelearningneuralnetworksembeddingsgraph-basedvectorindexesGNNexplainabilityknowledgequeryansweringretrieval-augmentedgeneration

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

The paper tries to establish that graph data management (GDM) and graph machine learning (GML) form a two-way street: database-style techniques such as cleaning, indexing, and scalable systems improve graph learning, while graph learning and large language models improve database tasks such as query answering and knowledge-graph retrieval. It organizes this relationship through a five-phase graph data pipeline—cleaning and augmentation, embedding, GNN training, downstream tasks, and explainability—and labels where each side helps the other. The authors claim this is the first survey to cover the synergy over the full pipeline, since earlier surveys treated relational data management and ML, or graph ML alone. If the map is right, researchers and system builders can see concrete openings where database methods and graph ML should be co-designed rather than developed separately.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the five-phase graph data pipeline of Figure 1: graph data extraction, integration, cleaning, and augmentation; graph embedding; GNN training; downstream tasks; and explainability, with end-to-end learning possible across phases. Each phase is tagged as a GDM task, a GML task, or both, and the survey's argument proceeds phase by phase, showing where the other discipline intervenes. The second structural device is the three-scenario classification: GDM benefits GML, GML benefits GDM, and GDM plus GML together serve downstream tasks. This classification is what turns a collection of examples into a map of the full two-way relationship.

What would settle it

A systematic literature search that finds a prior peer-reviewed survey or tutorial, published before February 2025, that explicitly covers both directions of the graph data management and graph machine learning synergy across the full graph pipeline would refute the paper's firstness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that graph data management and graph machine learning are mutually reinforcing across the entire graph data science lifecycle, and that this interdependence has not been surveyed before. On one side, GDM contributes graph data cleaning and augmentation that improve GNN accuracy, distributed and parallel systems that make embedding and training scale to billion-edge graphs, graph-based vector indexes that make high-dimensional embeddings searchable, and view-based or queryable explanation structures that make GNN outputs understandable. On the other side, GML contributes inference over incomplete knowledge graphs, natural-language query translation, cardinality estimation and query optimization, and graph-based retrieval-augmented generation that grounds large language models with structured facts. The paper presents these as synergies already visible in existing systems, and concludes that the integration should be treated as a deliberate design goal.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's usefulness depends on the five-phase pipeline in Figure 1 being a complete and representative model of the graph data science lifecycle, and on the chosen examples being the most relevant illustrations of each synergy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Graph data cleaning and augmentation should be treated as a first-class step in GNN pipelines, since dirty or noisy graphs directly limit model accuracy.
Distributed training systems, graph partitioning, and graph databases can carry GNN training and embedding past billion-edge scale, making scalability a data-management problem as much as an ML problem.
Graph-based vector indexes make GNN-produced embeddings queryable, so vector data management becomes part of the graph ML workflow.
Knowledge graph query answering can absorb ML-based inference and natural-language interfaces, allowing answers on incomplete, schema-flexible graphs.
Graph retrieval-augmented generation can ground LLM outputs in structured facts, and graph databases become plausible semantic caches for LLM question-answer pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension: build a citation-driven map of the same five phases using explicit, reproducible inclusion criteria; if the selected examples shift substantially, the paper's illustrative choices may reflect the authors' research agenda more than the field's full landscape.
If the synergy claim holds, graph database vendors will likely fold embedding generation, vector search, and LLM grounding into core query engines rather than shipping them as add-on libraries.
The paper's future-direction point about cleaning graphs for robustness rather than only correctness suggests a concrete benchmark: evaluate GNN accuracy under label noise before and after cleaning that targets robustness metrics.
Graph RAG as a semantic cache implies a cost model: indexing question-answer pairs in a graph or vector space could reduce LLM API calls for repeated or similar queries; measuring hit-rate versus latency would test that promise.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a survey, not a research paper, and it should be judged as one. The pipeline framing in Figure 1 is the genuine contribution: organizing the two-way interaction between graph data management and graph machine learning into cleaning, embedding, training, vector indexing, explainability, and downstream KG/LLM tasks is clear and mostly non-forced. The technical summaries of GNNs, graph embedding, HNSW-style indexes, KG query answering, and graph RAG are accurate and current. A reader new to this intersection will come away with a solid orientation.

The assembly is new. Earlier surveys on ML for data management and data management for ML focus largely on relational data. This is the first graph-specific organization of the end-to-end pipeline that I am aware of, and the synergy points are generally reasonable, not just tacked on. The sections on GDM helping GML (cleaning, scalable embedding, vector indexes, explainability) and GML helping GDM (KG QA, graph RAG) cover the major topics without gross omissions.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The 'first survey' claim in Section 5 is asserted without a systematic literature search, no protocol, no comparison table, and the closest prior work on data-centric graph ML (ref [166]) is set aside in one paragraph. The reader cannot verify 'first' or 'comprehensive.' That is the main weakness. Second, 'unparalleled effectiveness' in Section 3.3 is unsupported, and the citation attached to it ([26]) points to graph dependencies, not vector search; that is a sloppy citation mismatch. Third, several signature examples are the authors' own prior works (GVEX, RoboGExp, DistGER, MUST, Starling). Self-citation is not inherently a flaw when those systems are legitimate and representative, but without selection criteria the map may skew toward the authors' agenda. None of this invalidates the central thesis; the survey is accurate and the pipeline framing holds up.

Who benefits: graduate students and researchers entering the GDM-GML intersection, and database researchers looking for ML problems in graph data. Specialists will find little new depth, but that is not the purpose.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves a serious referee. The revision should supply the missing search evidence or downgrade 'first' and 'comprehensive' to 'a survey organized around the GDM-GML pipeline,' fix the citation mismatch, and add a sentence on how the exemplar systems were selected. I would support conditional acceptance after those changes.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This survey by Khan, Ke, and Wu reviews the two-way interaction between graph data management (GDM) and graph machine learning (GML) across an end-to-end graph data pipeline. The pipeline, shown in Figure 1, spans data cleaning and augmentation, graph embedding and GNN training, vector data management, explainability, knowledge-graph query answering, and graph-based retrieval-augmented generation for LLMs. The paper is organized around three scenarios: GDM benefits GML, GML benefits GDM, and GDM+GML jointly support downstream tasks. It surveys representative systems and algorithms (e.g., DistDGL, HNSW, GVEX, and graph RAG) and closes with future research directions. The central claim, stated in Section 5, is that this is the first survey exploring GDM-GML synergies over the end-to-end graph data pipeline.

Significance. If the claimed novelty and coverage hold, the survey fills a genuine gap: prior work has addressed ML-for-DM and DM-for-ML mostly for relational data, while graph-specific surveys have focused on one side (e.g., graph representation learning, GNNs, or data-centric GML) without organizing the two-way interaction around a pipeline. The paper's strengths are its broad and current topic coverage, its explicit 'Synergy' bullets that connect each area to the central GDM-GML theme, and its inclusion of emerging topics such as graph RAG and vector indexes. It also gives a practical overview of existing systems, which will help newcomers identify entry points. The survey is not technically derivational—there are no proofs or experiments—so its value rests on accurate characterization and comprehensive organization of prior work; both are generally reasonable, but the 'first' and 'comprehensive' status is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, Related Work] The load-bearing claim that 'ours is the first survey exploring the synergies between graph data management and graph ML over the end-to-end graph data pipeline' is not supported by a systematic literature search. The paper gives no search protocol, no inclusion/exclusion criteria, no time window or venue list, and no comparison table mapping earlier surveys to the pipeline phases in Figure 1. The closest prior survey, [166] on data-centric graph ML, is set aside with a one-line distinction despite substantial overlap with Sections 3.1 and 3.2. To keep the 'first' and 'comprehensive' claims, the revision should supply this evidence; alternatively, the wording should be downgraded to something like 'a survey organized around the GDM-GML pipeline.'
[Section 3.3, Graph-based Vector Data Indexes] The statement that graph-based approaches present 'unparalleled effectiveness' is an unsupported superlative and the citations given for it, [26] and [123], do not support the claim: [26] is a paper on graph dependencies and [123] is a materials-science KG exploration work, not an approximate nearest neighbor benchmark. Graph-based ANNS methods have known trade-offs against IVF, HNSW variants, and learned indexes, and the survey itself later discusses hardware-aware optimizations and hybrid methods, which suggests a more qualified phrasing is appropriate.
[Sections 3.2-3.4 and 4.1-4.2, selection of examples] A disproportionate share of the systems highlighted as signature examples are the authors' own prior works: GVEX [16] and RoboGExp [91] for explainability, DistGER [27] for distributed embedding, GraphLingo [60] for KG-LLM exploration, MUST [121] and Starling [125] for vector indexes. No selection criteria are given for choosing these examples over alternatives, so a reader cannot determine whether the coverage is comprehensive or tailored to the authors' research agenda. The revision should either state the selection methodology or deliberately diversify the examples, especially for claims of 'comprehensive' coverage.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1] The text says 'editing-based GP A' and 'editing-based GPA'; this appears to be a typo for 'GDA' (graph data augmentation).
[Section 3.3] The phrase 'an order of magnitude increase in efficiency' is vague; specifying the comparison baseline and workload would make the claim more informative.
[Section 3.4] The term 'F orwardexplainability' should be 'Forward explainability' (with a space), and the same formatting issue appears elsewhere in the paper.
[Section 4.2] The sentence 'the later retrieves the most relevant paths' should read 'the latter retrieves...' since two categories are being contrasted.
[Section 6] The phrase 'how to create a holistic embedding across multiple modalities' should use 'holistic embeddings' or a singular noun consistently; the current phrasing is slightly awkward.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's synergy thesis is supported by external systems, and the authors' own prior works are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a survey with no derived equations, no fitted parameters, and no empirical predictions that could be forced by construction. The central claim that graph data management and graph machine learning mutually reinforce each other across a five-phase pipeline is supported by a broad set of external systems and results, including DistDGL, HNSW, DiskANN, PyTorch BigGraph, Query2box, and graph RAG works. The authors' own prior systems (GVEX, RoboGExp, DistGER, GraphLingo, MUST, Starling) appear as illustrative examples of each synergy area, not as the evidence establishing that the synergy exists; removing them would not collapse the survey's argument. The §5 assertion that this is 'the first survey exploring the synergies between graph data management and graph ML' is a novelty and coverage claim that lacks a stated search protocol, but an unsupported novelty claim is a verification gap, not circularity: it does not reduce to its own input by definition, and no equation or fitted value is reused as a prediction. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present.

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

The survey introduces no free parameters and no new entities. Its central claim rests on two domain assumptions: the completeness of the pipeline model and the representativeness of the selected literature, the latter weakened by self-citation.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The five-phase pipeline (cleaning/augmentation, embedding, GNN training, downstream tasks, explainability) in Figure 1 is a representative model of the graph data science pipeline.
The entire survey (sections 3.1-3.4 and 4) is organized around this pipeline; if it omits important phases such as storage engines, transaction processing, or data acquisition, the synergy map is incomplete. Introduced in §1 with Figure 1.
domain assumption The papers chosen to illustrate each synergy are the most representative recent works in the field.
No systematic search or inclusion/exclusion criteria are provided; the selection relies on the authors' judgment, and many illustration examples are the authors' own publications (e.g., GVEX, RoboGExp, DistGER, GraphLingo, MUST, Starling). Stated implicitly throughout §3 and §4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Data Management and Graph Machine Learning: Synergies and Opportunities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5R63KUB

@misc{pith2026250200529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Data Management and Graph Machine Learning: Synergies and Opportunities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5R63KUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00529}
}

read the original abstract

The ubiquity of machine learning, particularly deep learning, applied to graphs is evident in applications ranging from cheminformatics (drug discovery) and bioinformatics (protein interaction prediction) to knowledge graph-based query answering, fraud detection, and social network analysis. Concurrently, graph data management deals with the research and development of effective, efficient, scalable, robust, and user-friendly systems and algorithms for storing, processing, and analyzing vast quantities of heterogeneous and complex graph data. Our survey provides a comprehensive overview of the synergies between graph data management and graph machine learning, illustrating how they intertwine and mutually reinforce each other across the entire spectrum of the graph data science and machine learning pipeline. Specifically, the survey highlights two crucial aspects: (1) How graph data management enhances graph machine learning, including contributions such as improved graph neural network performance through graph data cleaning, scalable graph embedding, efficient graph-based vector data management, robust graph neural networks, user-friendly explainability methods; and (2) how graph machine learning, in turn, aids in graph data management, with a focus on applications like query answering over knowledge graphs and various data science tasks. We discuss pertinent open problems and delineate crucial research directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00529 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Graph data pipeline in data science and machine learning applications. Graph embedding can be task-specific or task-agnostic. Graph neural network (GNN) training can be end-to-end based on downstream tasks. We show which phases belong to GDM and which belong to GML, and can benefit from each other. sential, as data is foundational to both. First, effective collaboration between data management and ML is necessary … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

181 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

[166]

Zhang, Q

Z. Zhang, Q. Liu, H. Wang, C. Lu, and C. Lee. ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networks. In AAAI, 2022

work page 2022
[26]

M. Chen, Z. Wei, B. Ding, Y . Li, Y . Y uan, X. Du, and J. Wen. Scalable Graph Neural Networks via Bidirectional Propagation. In NeurIPS, 2020

2020
[123]

Y . Tian. The world of graph databases from an industry perspective. SIGMOD Rec., 51(4):60–67, 2022

work page 2022
[16]

Antelmi, G

A. Antelmi, G. Cordasco, M. Polato, V . Scarano, C. Spagnuolo, and D. Y ang. A Survey on Hypergraph Representation Learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(1):1–38, 2023

2023
[91]

disturbance

introduces a new class of explanation structures to provide robust, both counterfactual and factual ex- planations for graph neural networks. Given a GNN, a robust explanation refers to the fraction of a graph that are counterfactual and factual explanation of the re- sults of the GNN over the graph, but also remains so for any “disturbance” by ﬂipping up...
[27]

T. Chen, D. Qiu, Y . Wu, A. Khan, X. Ke, and Y . Gao. View-based Explanations for Graph Neural Networks. Proc. ACM Manag. Data, 2(1):40:1–40:27, 2024

2024
[60]

Juillard, A

P . Juillard, A. Bonifati, and A. Maur. Interactive Grap h Repairs for Neighborhood Constraints. In EDBT, 2024

2024
[121]

D. Tang, J. Wang, R. Chen, L. Wang, W. Y u, J. Zhou, and K. Li. XGNN: Boosting Multi-GPU GNN Training via Global GNN MemoryStore. PVLDB, 17(5):1105–1118, 2024

work page 2024
[125]

V asimuddin, S

M. V asimuddin, S. Misra, G. Ma, R. Mohanty, E. Georgana s, A. Heinecke, D. D. Kalamkar, N. K. Ahmed, and S. Avancha. Distgnn: Scalable distributed training for large-scale gr aph neural networks. In SC, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 181 references

[1]

Abdallah and E

H. Abdallah and E. Mansour. Towards A GML-enabled Knowledge Graph Platform. In ICDE, 2023

2023
[2]

Graph neural networks (GNNs) are deep learning models to tackle graph-related tasks in an end-to-end manner [135]

BACKGROUND We introduce background materials on graph neural networks and graph embeddings. Graph neural networks (GNNs) are deep learning models to tackle graph-related tasks in an end-to-end manner [135]. GNNs have many variants, e.g., graph convolutional network (GCN) [57],...
[3]

editing-based

GRAPH DATA MANAGEMENT FOR GRAPH ML We discuss applications of graph data management such as data cleaning and augmentation in improving the GNN performance, graph algorithms, databases, and systems for scalable embedding learning, graph indexes for vector data management, and ...
[4]

4.1 Knowledge Graphs Query Answering Query answering over datasets is an important data management task

GRAPH ML FOR GRAPH DATA MANAGEMENT We illustrate applications of graph machine learning and graph-based LLMs in knowledge graphs query an- swering and other data science tasks. 4.1 Knowledge Graphs Query Answering Query answering over datasets is an important data management t...
[5]

However, graph data result in unique challenges to both data management and ML (§1), justifying the importance of our survey

RELATED WORK The closest to our work are surveys and tutorials on ML for data management and data management for ML, emphasizing on relational data and RDBMS [14, 59, 88, 43]. However, graph data result in unique challenges to both data management and ML (§1), justifying the i...
[6]

Real-time Graph Learning and Inference

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Future work can be in several directions. Real-time Graph Learning and Inference . The in- tegration of spatiotemporal GNNs and dynamic graphs would enable the real-time decision that can rapidly ex- plore evolving nodes and links. This calls for adaptive gra...
[7]

Ke is supported by Zhejiang Province’s “Lingyan” R&D Project under Grant No

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Khan acknowledges support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation grant NNF 22OC0072415. Ke is supported by Zhejiang Province’s “Lingyan” R&D Project under Grant No. 2024C01259 and Y ongjiang Talent Intro- duction Programme (2022A-237-G). Wu is supported by NSF under C...
[8]

M. Bawa, T. Condie, and P . Ganesan. LSH Forest: Self-tuni ng Indexes for Similarity Search. In WWW, 2005

2005
[9]

Borgeaud, A

S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, J. Hoffmann, T. Cai, E. Rutherfor d, K. Millican, G. v. d. Driessche, J.-B. Lespiau, B. Damoc, A. Clark, D. d. L. Casas, A. Guy, J. Menick, R. Ring, T. Hennigan, S. Huang, L. Maggiore, C. Jones, A. Cassirer, A. Brock, M. Paganini, G. Irving, O. Vinyals,...

2022
[10]

Bruna, W

J. Bruna, W. Zaremba, A. Szlam, and Y . LeCun. Spectral Networks and Locally Connected Networks on Graphs. In ICLR, 2014

2014
[11]

H. Cai, V . W. Zheng, and K. C. Chang. A Comprehensive Survey of Graph Embedding: Problems, Techniques, and Applications. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 30(9):1616–1637, 2018

2018
[12]

L. Cai, J. Li, J. Wang, and S. Ji. Line Graph Neural Networ ks for Link Prediction. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 44(9):5103–5113, 2022

2022
[13]

M. Ali, M. Berrendorf, C. T. Hoyt, L. V ermue, M. Galkin, S. Sharifzadeh, A. Fischer, V . Tresp, and J. Lehmann. Bringing Light Into the Dark: A Large-Scale Evaluation of Knowledge Graph Embedding Models Under a Uniﬁed Framework. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 44(12)...

2022
[14]

Andoni, P

A. Andoni, P . Indyk, T. Laarhoven, I. Razenshteyn, and L. Schmidt. Practical and Optimal LSH for Angular Distance. In NeurIPS, 2015

2015
[15]

Andoni, P

A. Andoni, P . Indyk, and I. Razenshteyn. Approximate Nea rest Neighbor Search in High Dimensions. In International Congress of Mathematicians: Rio de Janeiro , 2018

2018
[17]

Babenko and V

A. Babenko and V . Lempitsky. The Inverted Multi-index. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 37(6):1247–1260, 2014

2014
[18]

C. D. T. Barros, M. R. F. Mendonça, A. B. Vieira, and A. Ziviani. A Survey on Embedding Dynamic Graphs. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(1), 2021

2021
[19]

Datta, M

A. Datta, M. Fredrikson, K. Leino, K. Lu, S. Sen, and Z. Wang. Machine Learning Explainability and Robustness: Connected at the Hip. In KDD, 2021

2021
[20]

W. Dong, C. Moses, and K. Li. Efﬁcient k-nearest Neighbo r Graph Construction for Generic Similarity Measures. In WWW, 2011

2011
[21]

In spectral methods, ﬁlters are ap- plied on a graph’s frequency modes computed via graph Fourier transform

approaches. In spectral methods, ﬁlters are ap- plied on a graph’s frequency modes computed via graph Fourier transform. Spectral formulations rely on the ﬁxed spectrum of the graph Laplacian, and are suitable only for graphs with a single structure (and varying fea- tures on ...
[22]

Echihabi, T

K. Echihabi, T. Palpanas, and K. Zoumpatianos. New Tren ds in High-D V ector Similarity Search: AI-driven, Progressive, and Distributed. PVLDB, 14(12):3198–3201, 2021

2021
[23]

Faber, A

L. Faber, A. K. Moghaddam, and R. Wattenhofer. When Comparing to Ground Truth is Wrong: On Evaluating GNN Explanation Methods. In KDD, 2021

2021
[24]

C. Chai, N. Tang, J. Fan, and Y . Luo. Demystifying Artiﬁc ial Intelligence for Data Preparation. In SIGMOD, 2023

2023
[25]

C. Chai, J. Wang, Y . Luo, Z. Niu, and G. Li. Data Managemen t for Machine Learning: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 35(5):4646–4667, 2023

2023
[28]

P . Cui, X. Wang, J. Pei, and W. Zhu. A Survey on Network Embedding. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 31(5):833–852, 2019

2019
[29]

Dai and S

E. Dai and S. Wang. Towards Self-Explainable Graph Neur al Network. In CIKM, 2021

2021
[30]

Gao and C

J. Gao and C. Long. High-Dimensional Approximate Neare st Neighbor Search: with Reliable and Efﬁcient Distance Comparison Operations. PACMMOD, 1(2):1–27, 2023

2023
[31]

Gollapudi, N

S. Gollapudi, N. Karia, V . Sivashankar, R. Krishnaswam y, N. Begwani, S. Raz, Y . Lin, Y . Zhang, N. Mahapatro, P . Srinivasan, et al. Filtered-DiskANN: Graph Algorithms for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search with Filters. In WWW, 2023

2023
[32]

Duvenaud, D

D. Duvenaud, D. Maclaurin, J. Aguilera-Iparraguirre, R. Gómez-Bombarelli, T. Hirzel, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and R. P . Adams. Convolutional Networks on Graphs for Learning Molecular Fingerprints. In NeurIPS, 2015

2015
[33]

S. Guan, H. Ma, P . Lin, and Y . Wu. GEDet: Adversarially Learned Few-shot Detection of Erroneous Nodes in Graphs. In IEEE BigData, 2020

2020
[34]

S. Guan, H. Ma, M. Wang, and Y . Wu. GALE: Active Adversarial Learning for Erroneous Node Detection in Graphs. In ICDE, 2023

2023
[35]

W. Fan, Z. Fan, C. Tian, and X. L. Dong. Keys for Graphs. PVLDB, 8(12):1590–1601, 2015

2015
[36]

W. Fan, R. Jin, M. Liu, P . Lu, C. Tian, and J. Zhou. Capturi ng Associations in Graphs. PVLDB, 13(11):1863–1876, 2020

2020
[37]

Fan and P

W. Fan and P . Lu. Dependencies for Graphs. TODS, 44(2):5:1–5:40, 2019

2019
[38]

P . Fang, A. Khan, S. Luo, F. Wang, D. Feng, Z. Li, W. Yin, an d Y . Cao. Distributed Graph Embedding with Information-Oriented Random Walks. PVLDB, 16(7):1643–1656, 2023

2023
[39]

C. Fu, C. Xiang, C. Wang, and D. Cai. Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search with the Navigating Spreading-out Graph. PVLDB, 12:461––474, 2019

2019
[40]

Funke, M

T. Funke, M. Khosla, M. Rathee, and A. Anand. Zorro: V ali d, Sparse, and Stable Explanations in Graph Neural Networks. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 35(8):8687–8698, 2023

2023
[41]

Huang, X

P .-S. Huang, X. He, J. Gao, L. Deng, A. Acero, and L. Heck. Learning Deep Structured Semantic Models for Web Search Using Clickthrough Data. In CIKM, 2013

2013
[42]

(5) KG embedding methods can be useful as well

for simple NLQs and EmbedKGQA [99] for multi- hop NLQs. (5) KG embedding methods can be useful as well. Wang et al. [128, 127] decompose multi-hop and complex queries into smaller subqueries, answer each subquery via single-hop reasoning with KG embedding, and then assemble th...
[43]

Grover and J

A. Grover and J. Leskovec. Node2vec: Scalable Feature Learning for Networks. In KDD, 2016

2016
[44]

J. Jang, H. Choi, H. Bae, S. Lee, M. Kwon, and M. Jung. CXL-ANNS: Software-Hardware Collaborative Memory Disaggregation and Computation for Billion-Scale Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In USENIX ATC, 2023

2023
[45]

Jayaram Subramanya, F

S. Jayaram Subramanya, F. Devvrit, H. V . Simhadri, R. Krishnawamy, and R. Kadekodi. Diskann: Fast Accurate Billion-point Nearest Neighbor Search on a Single Node. NeurIPS, 32, 2019

2019
[46]

Gupta, A

P . Gupta, A. Goel, J. Lin, A. Sharma, D. Wang, and R. Zadeh . WTF: The Who to Follow Service at Twitter. In WWW, 2013

2013
[47]

W. L. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec. Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs. In NeurIPS, 2017

2017
[48]

X. Han, Z. Jiang, N. Liu, and X. Hu. G-Mixup: Graph Data Augmentation for Graph Classiﬁcation. In ICML, 2022

2022
[49]

X. He, Y . Tian, Y . Sun, N. V . Chawla, T. Laurent, Y . LeCun, X. Bresson, and B. Hooi. G-Retriever: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Textual Graph Understanding and Question Answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07630, 2024

2024 arXiv
[50]

Horchidan and P

S. Horchidan and P . Carbone. ORB: Empowering Graph Queries through Inference. In Joint Proceedings of the ESWC 2023 W orkshops and Tutorials, 2023

2023
[51]

J. Hu, R. Cheng, Z. Huang, Y . Fang, and S. Luo. On Embedding Uncertain Graphs. In CIKM, 2017

2017
[52]

A. Khan. Knowledge Graphs Querying. SIGMOD Rec., 52(2):18–29, 2023

2023
[53]

Huang, J

X. Huang, J. Zhang, D. Li, and P . Li. Knowledge Graph Embedding Based Question Answering. In WSDM, 2019

2019
[54]

Hulsebos, X

M. Hulsebos, X. Deng, H. Sun, and P . Papotti. Models and Practice of Neural Table Representations. In SIGMOD, 2023

2023
[55]

Kim and F

B. Kim and F. Doshi-V elez. Machine Learning Techniques for Accountability. AI Mag., 42(1):47–52, 2021

2021
[56]

T. N. Kipf and M. Welling. V ariational Graph Auto-Encod ers. In NeurIPS W orkshop on Bayesian Deep Learning, 2016

2016
[57]

Jegou, M

H. Jegou, M. Douze, and C. Schmid. Product Quantization for Nearest Neighbor Search. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 33(1):117–128, 2010

2010
[58]

B. Jin, G. Liu, C. Han, M. Jiang, H. Ji, and J. Han. Large Language Models on Graphs: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 36(12):8622–8642, 2024

2024
[59]

W. Jin, L. Zhao, S. Zhang, Y . Liu, J. Tang, and N. Shah. Gra ph Condensation for Graph Neural Networks. In ICLR, 2022

2022
[61]

Kakkad, J

J. Kakkad, J. Jannu, K. Sharma, C. C. Aggarwal, and S. Medya. A Survey on Explainability of Graph Neural Networks. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. , 46(2):35–63, 2023

2023
[62]

Keivani and K

O. Keivani and K. Sinha. Improved Nearest Neighbor Sear ch Using Auxiliary Information and Priority Functions. In ICML, 2018

2018
[63]

C. Li, M. Zhang, D. G. Andersen, and Y . He. Improving Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search through Learned Adaptive Early Termination. In SIGMOD, 2020

2020
[64]

Khan and E

A. Khan and E. B. Mobaraki. Interpretability Methods fo r Graph Neural Networks. In DSAA, 2023

2023
[65]

Khandelwal, O

U. Khandelwal, O. Levy, D. Jurafsky, L. Zettlemoyer, an d M. Lewis. Generalization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language Models. In ICLR, 2020

2020
[66]

Y . Li, V . Zakhozhyi, D. Zhu, and L. J. Salazar. Domain Speciﬁc Knowledge Graphs as a Service to the Public. In KDD, 2020

2020
[67]

H. Lin, M. Y an, X. Y e, D. Fan, S. Pan, W. Chen, and Y . Xie. A Comprehensive Survey on Distributed Training of Graph Neural Networks. Proc. IEEE, 111(12):1572–1606, 2023

2023
[68]

T. N. Kipf and M. Welling. Semi-Supervised Classiﬁcati on with Graph Convolutional Networks. In ICLR, 2017

2017
[69]

Klicpera, A

J. Klicpera, A. Bojchevski, and S. Günnemann. Predict t hen Propagate: Graph Neural Networks meet Personalized PageRank. In ICLR, 2019

2019
[70]

Kumar, M

A. Kumar, M. Boehm, and J. Y ang. Data Management in Machine Learning: Challenges, Techniques, and Systems. In SIGMOD, 2017

2017
[71]

D. Le, K. Zhao, M. Wang, and Y . Wu. GraphLingo: Domain Knowledge Exploration by Synchronizing Knowledge Graphs and Large Language Models. In ICDE, 2024

2024
[72]

Lerer, L

A. Lerer, L. Wu, J. Shen, T. Lacroix, L. Wehrstedt, A. Bos e, and A. Peysakhovich. Pytorch-BigGraph: A Large Scale Graph Embedding System. In MLSys, 2019

2019
[73]

B. Li, W. Wang, Y . Sun, L. Zhang, M. A. Ali, and Y . Wang. GraphER: Token-Centric Entity Resolution with Graph Convolutional Neural Networks. In AAAI, 2020

2020
[74]

K. Lu, C. Xiao, and Y . Ishikawa. Probabilistic Routing f or Graph-Based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In ICML, 2024

2024
[75]

W. Li, Y . Zhang, Y . Sun, W. Wang, M. Li, W. Zhang, and X. Lin. Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on High Dimensional Data—Experiments, Analyses, and Improvement. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 32(8):1475–1488, 2019

2019
[76]

Y . Li, Z. Li, P . Wang, J. Li, X. Sun, H. Cheng, and J. X. Y u. A Survey of Graph Meets Large Language Model: Progress and Future Directions. In IJCAI, 2024

2024
[77]

Y . A. Malkov and D. A. Y ashunin. Efﬁcient and Robust Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search Using Hierarchical Navigable Small World Graphs. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 42(4):824–836, 2018

2018
[78]

M. D. Manohar, Z. Shen, G. Blelloch, L. Dhulipala, Y . Gu, H. V . Simhadri, and Y . Sun. ParlayANN: Scalable and Deterministic Parallel Graph-Based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search Algorithms. In PPoPP24, 2024

2024
[79]

P . Lin, Q. Song, Y . Wu, and J. Pi. Repairing Entities usin g Star Constraints in Multirelational Graphs. In ICDE, 2020

2020
[80]

X. Lin, Y . Peng, B. Choi, and J. Xu. Human-Powered Data Cleaning for Probabilistic Reachability Queries on Uncert ain Graphs. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 29(7):1452–1465, 2017

2017
[81]

Z. C. Lipton. The Mythos of Model Interpretability. Commun. ACM, 61(10), 2018

2018
[82]

C. Liu, H. Liu, H. Jin, X. Liao, Y . Zhang, Z. Duan, J. Xu, an d H. Li. ReGNN: A ReRAM-Based Heterogeneous Architecture for General Graph Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2022

2022
[83]

J. Liu, C. Y ang, Z. Lu, J. Chen, Y . Li, M. Zhang, T. Bai, Y . Fang, L. Sun, P . S. Y u, and C. Shi. Towards Graph Foundation Models: A Survey and Beyond. CoRR, abs/2310.11829, 2023

2023 arXiv
[84]

K. Lu, M. Kudo, C. Xiao, and Y . Ishikawa. HVS: Hierarchic al Graph Structure Based on V oronoi Diagrams for Solving Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. PVLDB, 15(2):246–258, 2021

2021
[85]

R. D. Pasquale and S. Represa. Empowering Domain-Speci ﬁc Language Models with Graph-Oriented Databases: A Paradigm Shift in Performance and Model Maintenance. CoRR, abs/2410.03867, 2024

2024 arXiv
[86]

D. Luo, W. Cheng, D. Xu, W. Y u, B. Zong, H. Chen, and X. Zhang. Parameterized Explainer for Graph Neural Network. In NeurIPS, 2020

2020
[87]

Ma and J

Y . Ma and J. Tang. Deep Learning on Graphs . Cambridge University Press, 2021

2021
[88]

Polyzotis, S

N. Polyzotis, S. Roy, S. E. Whang, and M. Zinkevich. Data Management Challenges in Production Machine Learning. In SIGMOD, 2017

2017
[89]

P . E. Pope, S. Kolouri, M. Rostami, C. E. Martin, and H. Hoffmann. Explainability Methods for Graph Convolutional Neural Networks. In CVPR, 2019

2019
[90]

Mavromatis and G

C. Mavromatis and G. Karypis. GNN-RAG: Graph Neural Retrieval for Large Language Model Reasoning. CoRR, 2024

2024
[92]

E. Min, R. Chen, Y . Bian, T. Xu, K. Zhao, W. Huang, P . Zhao, J. Huang, S. Ananiadou, and Y . Rong. Transformer for Graphs: An Overview from Architecture Perspective. CoRR, abs/2202.08455, 2022

2022 arXiv
[93]

Mohoney, R

J. Mohoney, R. Waleffe, H. Xu, T. Rekatsinas, and S. V enkataraman. Marius: Learning Massive Graph Embeddings on a Single Machine. In OSDI, 2021

2021
[94]

Ootomo, A

H. Ootomo, A. Naruse, C. Nolet, R. Wang, T. Feher, and Y . Wang. CAGRA: Highly Parallel Graph Construction and Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search for GPUs. In ICDE, 2024

2024
[95]

J. J. Pan, J. Wang, and G. Li. Survey of V ector Database Management Systems. VLDB J., 33(5):1591–1615, 2024

2024
[96]

S. Pan, L. Luo, Y . Wang, C. Chen, J. Wang, and X. Wu. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 36(7):3580–3599, 2024

2024
[97]

and follow-up works train on multi-hop queries – they embed multi-hop logic queries and their answers (i.e., entities from a KG) in the same embedding space to reduce the query processing cost via inference. Domain-speciﬁc knowledge graphs (KGs) [123, 66] have been curated to ...
[98]

Patel, P

L. Patel, P . Kraft, C. Guestrin, and M. Zaharia. ACORN: Performant and Predicate-Agnostic Search Over V ector Embeddings and Structured Data. In SIGMOD, 2024

2024
[99]

Y . Peng, B. Choi, T. N. Chan, J. Y ang, and J. Xu. Efﬁcient Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search in Multi-dimensional Databases. PACMMOD, 1(1):1–27, 2023

2023
[100]

M. S. Schlichtkrull, N. D. Cao, and I. Titov. Interpret ing Graph Neural Networks for NLP with Differentiable Edge Masking. In ICLR, 2021

2021
[101]

Pradhan, A

R. Pradhan, A. Lahiri, S. Galhotra, and B. Salimi. Expla inable AI: Foundations, Applications, Opportunities for Data Management Research. In ICDE, 2022

2022
[102]

D. Qiu, M. Wang, A. Khan, and Y . Wu. Generating Robust Counterfactual Witnesses for Graph Neural Networks. In ICDE, 2024

2024
[103]

J. Qiu, Y . Dong, H. Ma, J. Li, K. Wang, and J. Tang. Network Embedding as Matrix Factorization: Unifying DeepWalk, LINE, PTE, and Node2vec. In WSDM, 2018

2018
[104]

Quamar, V

A. Quamar, V . Efthymiou, C. Lei, and F. Özcan. Natural Language Interfaces to Data. F ound. Trends Databases, 11(4):319–414, 2022

2022
[105]

Rabbani, M

K. Rabbani, M. Lissandrini, and K. Hose. Shactor: impro ving the quality of large-scale knowledge graphs with validatin g shapes. In Companion of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) , pages 151–154, 2023

2023
[106]

Rathee, T

M. Rathee, T. Funke, A. Anand, and M. Khosla. Bagel: A Benchmark for Assessing Graph Neural Network Explanations. CoRR, abs/2206.13983, 2022

2022 arXiv
[107]

H. Ren, M. Galkin, M. Cochez, Z. Zhu, and J. Leskovec. Neural Graph Reasoning: Complex Logical Query Answering Meets Graph Databases. CoRR, abs/2303.14617, 2023

2023 arXiv
[108]

H. Ren, W. Hu, and J. Leskovec. Query2box: Reasoning ove r Knowledge Graphs in V ector Space Using Box Embeddings. In ICLR, 2020

2020
[109]

J. Ren, M. Zhang, and D. Li. HM-ANN: efﬁcient billion-po int nearest neighbor search on heterogeneous memory. In NeurIPS, 2020

2020
[110]

Saxena, A

A. Saxena, A. Tripathi, and P . P . Talukdar. Improving Multi-hop Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs using Knowledge Base Embeddings. In ACL, 2020

2020
[111]

J. Tang, Y . Y ang, W. Wei, L. Shi, L. Su, S. Cheng, D. Yin, a nd C. Huang. GraphGPT: Graph Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models. In SIGIR, pages 491–500, 2024

2024
[112]

M. S. Schlichtkrull, T. N. Kipf, P . Bloem, R. van den Ber g, I. Titov, and M. Welling. Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networks. In ESWC, 2018

2018
[113]

Schnake, O

T. Schnake, O. Eberle, J. Lederer, S. Nakajima, K. T. Sc hütt, K. Müller, and G. Montavon. Higher-Order Explanations of Graph Neural Networks via Relevant Walks. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 44(11):7581–7596, 2022

2022
[114]

Y . Shao, H. Li, X. Gu, H. Yin, Y . Li, X. Miao, W. Zhang, B. Cui, and L. Chen. Distributed Graph Neural Network Training: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 56(8):191:1–191:39, 2024

2024
[115]

J. Si, X. Gan, T. Xiao, B. Y ang, D. Dong, and Z. Pang. STEGNN: Spatial-Temporal Embedding Graph Neural Networks for Road Network Forecasting. In ICPADS, 2022

2022
[116]

J. Sun, C. Xu, L. Tang, S. Wang, C. Lin, Y . Gong, H. Shum, and J. Guo. Think-on-Graph: Deep and Responsible Reasoning of Large Language Model with Knowledge Graph. In ICLR, 2024

2024
[117]

L. Sun, L. He, Z. Huang, B. Cao, C. Xia, X. Wei, and P . S. Y u . Joint Embedding of Meta-Path and Meta-Graph for Heterogeneous Information Networks. In ICBK, 2018

2018
[118]

L. Sun, Z. Tao, Y . Li, and H. Arakawa. ODA: Observation-Driven Agent for integrating LLMs and Knowledge Graphs. In ACL, 2024

2024
[119]

Suresh, P

S. Suresh, P . Li, C. Hao, and J. Neville. Adversarial Gr aph Augmentation to Improve Graph Contrastive Learning. In NeurIPS, 2021

2021
[120]

J. Tan, S. Geng, Z. Fu, Y . Ge, S. Xu, Y . Li, and Y . Zhang. Learning and Evaluating Graph Neural Network Explanations Based on Counterfactual and Factual Reasoning. In W eb Conference, 2022

2022
[122]

M. Wang, L. Lv, X. Xu, Y . Wang, Q. Y ue, and J. Ni. An Efﬁcient and Robust Framework for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search with Attribute Constraint. In NeurIPS, 2023

2023
[124]

Y . Tian, X. Zhao, and X. Zhou. DB-LSH 2.0: Locality-Sensitive Hashing With Query-Based Dynamic Bucketing. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 2023

2023
[126]

V elickovic, G

P . V elickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P .Liò, and Y . Bengio. Graph Attention Networks. In ICLR, 2018

2018
[127]

V elickovic, R

P . V elickovic, R. Ying, M. Padovano, R. Hadsell, and C. Blundell. Neural Execution of Graph Algorithms. In ICLR, 2020

2020
[128]

M. N. Vu and M. T. Thai. PGM-Explainer: Probabilistic Graphical Model Explanations for Graph Neural Networks. In NeurIPS, 2020

2020
[129]

H. Wang, J. Wang, J. Wang, M. Zhao, W. Zhang, F. Zhang, X. Xie, and M. Guo. GraphGAN: Graph Representation Learning With Generative Adversarial Nets. In AAAI, 2018

2018
[130]

J. Wang, P . Huang, H. Zhao, Z. Zhang, B. Zhao, and D. L. Le e. Billion-scale Commodity Embedding for E-commerce Recommendation in Alibaba. In KDD, 2018

2018
[131]

J. Wang, X. Yi, R. Guo, H. Jin, P . Xu, S. Li, X. Wang, X. Guo , C. Li, X. Xu, et al. Milvus: A Purpose-built V ector Data Management System. In SIGMOD, 2021

2021
[132]

M. Wang, X. Ke, X. Xu, L. Chen, Y . Gao, et al. MUST: An Effective and Scalable Framework for Multimodal Search of Target Modality. In ICDE, 2024

2024
[133]

Y . Wu, K. Ma, Z. Cai, T. Jin, B. Li, C. Zheng, J. Cheng, and F. Y u. Seastar: V ertex-centric Programming for Graph Neural Networks. In EuroSys, 2021

2021
[134]

M. Wang, H. Ma, A. Daundkar, S. Guan, Y . Bian, A. Sehirlioglu, and Y . Wu. CRUX: Crowdsourced Materials Science Resource and Workﬂow Exploration. In CIKM, 2022

2022
[135]

M. Wang, H. Wu, X. Ke, Y . Gao, X. Xu, and L. Chen. An Interactive Multi-modal Query Answering System with Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models. PVLDB, 17(12):1643–1656, 2024

2024
[136]

M. Wang, W. Xu, X. Yi, S. Wu, Z. Peng, X. Ke, Y . Gao, X. Xu, R. Guo, and C. Xie. Starling: An I/O-Efﬁcient Disk-Resident Graph Index Framework for High-Dimensional V ector Similarity Search on Data Segment. In SIGMOD, 2024

2024
[137]

M. Wang, X. Xu, Q. Y ue, and Y . Wang. A Comprehensive Survey and Experimental Comparison of Graph-based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. PVLDB, 14(11):1964—-1978, 2021

1964
[138]

Y . Wang, A. Khan, T. Wu, J. Jin, and H. Y an. Semantic Guided and Response Times Bounded Top-k Similarity Search over Knowledge Graphs. In ICDE, 2020

2020
[139]

Y . Wang, A. Khan, X. Xu, J. Jin, Q. Hong, and T. Fu. Aggregate Queries on Knowledge Graphs: Fast Approximation with Semantic-aware Sampling. In ICDE, 2022

2022
[140]

Y . Wang, N. Lipka, R. A. Rossi, A. F. Siu, R. Zhang, and T. Derr. Knowledge Graph Prompting for Multi-Document Question Answering. In AAAI, 2024

2024
[141]

C. Wei, B. Wu, S. Wang, R. Lou, C. Zhan, F. Li, and Y . Cai. Analyticdb-v: A Hybrid Analytical Engine Towards Query Fusion for Structured and Unstructured Data. PVLDB, 13(12):3152–3165, 2020

2020
[142]

se- mantic caches

and GreaseLM [152] ﬁne-tune a vanilla LM with a KG on downstream tasks, whereas DRAGON [141] and JAKET [144] perform self-supervised pre-training from both text and KGs at scale. Synergy. Query processing is the bread-and-butter for the data management community. We highlight ...
[143]

Weikum, X

G. Weikum, X. L. Dong, S. Razniewski, and F. M. Suchanek . Machine Knowledge: Creation and Curation of Comprehensive Knowledge Bases. F ound. Trends Databases, 10(2-4):108–490, 2021

2021
[144]

Y . Wu, N. Hu, S. Bi, G. Qi, J. Ren, A. Xie, and W. Song. Retrieve-Rewrite-Answer: A KG-to-Text Enhanced LLMs Framework for Knowledge Graph Question Answering. CoRR, abs/2309.11206, 2023

2023 arXiv
[145]

Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, and S. Y . Philip . A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , 2020

2020
[146]

Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, and P . S. Y u. A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , 32(1):4–24, 2021

2021
[147]

F. Xia, K. Sun, S. Y u, A. Aziz, L. Wan, S. Pan, and H. Liu. Graph Learning: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell., 2(2):109–127, 2021

2021
[148]

J. Xia, H. Lin, Y . Xu, C. Tan, L. Wu, S. Li, and S. Z. Li. GNN Cleaner: Label Cleaner for Graph Structured Data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 2023

2023
[149]

K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, and S. Jegelka. How Powerful a re Graph Neural Networks? In ICLR, 2019

2019
[150]

Z. Xu, M. J. Cruz, M. Guevara, T. Wang, M. Deshpande, X. Wang, and Z. Li. Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Knowledge Graphs for Customer Service Question Answering. In SIGIR, 2024

2024
[151]

Y ang, J

R. Y ang, J. Shi, X. Xiao, Y . Y ang, J. Liu, and S. S. Bhowmick. Scaling Attributed Network Embedding to Massive Graphs. PVLDB, 14(1):37–49, 2020

2020
[152]

Y asunaga, A

M. Y asunaga, A. Bosselut, H. Ren, X. Zhang, C. D. Mannin g, P . Liang, and J. Leskovec. Deep Bidirectional Language-Knowledge Graph Pretraining. In NeurIPS, 2022

2022
[153]

Y asunaga, H

M. Y asunaga, H. Ren, A. Bosselut, P . Liang, and J. Lesko vec. QA-GNN: Reasoning with Language Models and Knowledge Graphs for Question Answering. In NAACL-HLT, 2021

2021
[154]

Z. Ying, D. Bourgeois, J. Y ou, M. Zitnik, and J. Leskove c. GNNExplainer: Generating Explanations for Graph Neural Networks. In NeurIPS, 2019

2019
[155]

D. Y u, C. Zhu, Y . Y ang, and M. Zeng. JAKET: Joint Pre-training of Knowledge Graph and Language Understanding. In AAAI, 2022

2022
[156]

Y . Y u, D. Wen, Y . Zhang, L. Qin, W. Zhang, and X. Lin. GPU-accelerated Proximity Graph Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search and Construction. In ICDE, 2022

2022
[157]

Y uan, J

H. Y uan, J. Tang, X. Hu, and S. Ji. XGNN: Towards Model-level Explanations of Graph Neural Networks. In KDD, 2020

2020
[158]

Y uan, H

H. Y uan, H. Y u, S. Gui, and S. Ji. Explainability in Grap h Neural Networks: A Taxonomic Survey. TPAMI, 45(5):5782–5799, 2023

2023
[159]

Y uan, H

H. Y uan, H. Y u, J. Wang, K. Li, and S. Ji. On Explainabili ty of Graph Neural Networks via Subgraph Explorations. In ICML, 2021

2021
[160]

Y uan, X

S. Y uan, X. Wu, and Y . Xiang. SNE: Signed Network Embedding. In PAKDD, 2017

2017
[161]

Q. Y ue, X. Xu, Y . Wang, Y . Tao, and X. Luo. Routing-Guided Learned Product Quantization for Graph-Based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In ICDE, 2024

2024
[162]

Zhang, S

Q. Zhang, S. Xu, Q. Chen, G. Sui, J. Xie, Z. Cai, Y . Chen, Y . He, Y . Y ang, F. Y ang, et al. VBASE: Unifying Online V ector Similarity Search and Relational Queries via Relaxed Monotonicity. In OSDI, 2023

2023
[163]

Zhang, A

X. Zhang, A. Bosselut, M. Y asunaga, H. Ren, P . Liang, C. D. Manning, and J. Leskovec. GreaseLM: Graph REASoning Enhanced Language Models for Question Answering. In ICLR, 2022

2022
[164]

Zhang, H

Y . Zhang, H. Zhu, Z. Song, P . Koniusz, and I. King. COSTA : Covariance-Preserving Feature Augmentation for Graph Contrastive Learning. In KDD, 2022

2022
[165]

Zhang, P

Z. Zhang, P . Cui, and W. Zhu. Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 34(1):249–270, 2022

2022
[167]

J. Zhao, Y . Dong, M. Ding, E. Kharlamov, and J. Tang. Adaptive Diffusion in Graph Neural Networks. In NeurIPS, 2021

2021
[168]

K. Zhao, J. X. Y u, H. Zhang, Q. Li, and Y . Rong. A Learned Sketch for Subgraph Counting. In SIGMOD, 2021

2021
[169]

T. Zhao, G. Liu, S. Günnemann, and M. Jiang. Graph Data Augmentation for Graph Machine Learning: A Survey. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 46(2):140–165, 2023

2023
[170]

T. Zhao, Y . Liu, L. Neves, O. J. Woodford, M. Jiang, and N. Shah. Data Augmentation for Graph Neural Networks. In AAAI, 2021

2021
[171]

T. Zhao, X. Tang, D. Zhang, H. Jiang, N. Rao, Y . Song, P . Agrawal, K. Subbian, B. Yin, and M. Jiang. AutoGDA: Automated Graph Data Augmentation for Node Classiﬁcation. In Learning on Graphs Conference, 2022

2022
[172]

T. Zhao, X. Zhang, and S. Wang. GraphSMOTE: Imbalanced Node Classiﬁcation on Graphs with Graph Neural Networks. In WSDM, 2021

2021
[173]

W. Zhao, S. Tan, and P . Li. Song: Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on GPU. In ICDE, 2020

2020
[174]

X. Zhao, Y . Tian, K. Huang, B. Zheng, and X. Zhou. Toward s Efﬁcient Index Construction and Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search in High-Dimensional Spaces. PVLDB, 16(8):1979–1991, 2023

1979
[175]

Zheng, B

C. Zheng, B. Zong, W. Cheng, D. Song, J. Ni, W. Y u, H. Chen , and W. Wang. Robust Graph Representation Learning via Neural Sparsiﬁcation. In ICML, 2020

2020
[176]

Zheng, C

D. Zheng, C. Ma, M. Wang, J. Zhou, Q. Su, X. Song, Q. Gan, Z. Zhang, and G. Karypis. DistDGL: Distributed Graph Neural Network Training for Billion-Scale Graphs. In IA3, 2020

2020
[177]

Zheng, Y

X. Zheng, Y . Liu, Z. Bao, M. Fang, X. Hu, A. W. Liew, and S. Pan. Towards Data-centric Graph Machine Learning: Review and Outlook. CoRR, abs/2309.10979, 2023

2023 arXiv
[178]

R. Zhu, K. Zhao, H. Y ang, W. Lin, C. Zhou, B. Ai, Y . Li, and J. Zhou. Aligraph: A comprehensive graph neural network platform. Proc. VLDB Endow., 12(12):2094–2105, 2019

2019
[179]

Y . Zhu, Y . Xu, F. Y u, Q. Liu, S. Wu, and L. Wang. Graph Contrastive Learning with Adaptive Augmentation. In WWW, 2021

2021
[180]

Z. Zhu, S. Xu, J. Tang, and M. Qu. GraphVite: A High-Performance CPU-GPU Hybrid System for Node Embedding. In WWW, 2019

2019
[181]

C. Zuo, M. Qiao, W. Zhou, F. Li, and D. Deng. SeRF: Segment Graph for Range-Filtering Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In SIGMOD, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [166]

Zhang, Q

Z. Zhang, Q. Liu, H. Wang, C. Lu, and C. Lee. ProtGNN: Towards Self-Explaining Graph Neural Networks. In AAAI, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [26]

M. Chen, Z. Wei, B. Ding, Y . Li, Y . Y uan, X. Du, and J. Wen. Scalable Graph Neural Networks via Bidirectional Propagation. In NeurIPS, 2020

2020

[3] [123]

Y . Tian. The world of graph databases from an industry perspective. SIGMOD Rec., 51(4):60–67, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [16]

Antelmi, G

A. Antelmi, G. Cordasco, M. Polato, V . Scarano, C. Spagnuolo, and D. Y ang. A Survey on Hypergraph Representation Learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(1):1–38, 2023

2023

[5] [91]

disturbance

introduces a new class of explanation structures to provide robust, both counterfactual and factual ex- planations for graph neural networks. Given a GNN, a robust explanation refers to the fraction of a graph that are counterfactual and factual explanation of the re- sults of the GNN over the graph, but also remains so for any “disturbance” by ﬂipping up...

[6] [27]

T. Chen, D. Qiu, Y . Wu, A. Khan, X. Ke, and Y . Gao. View-based Explanations for Graph Neural Networks. Proc. ACM Manag. Data, 2(1):40:1–40:27, 2024

2024

[7] [60]

Juillard, A

P . Juillard, A. Bonifati, and A. Maur. Interactive Grap h Repairs for Neighborhood Constraints. In EDBT, 2024

2024

[8] [121]

D. Tang, J. Wang, R. Chen, L. Wang, W. Y u, J. Zhou, and K. Li. XGNN: Boosting Multi-GPU GNN Training via Global GNN MemoryStore. PVLDB, 17(5):1105–1118, 2024

work page 2024

[9] [125]

V asimuddin, S

M. V asimuddin, S. Misra, G. Ma, R. Mohanty, E. Georgana s, A. Heinecke, D. D. Kalamkar, N. K. Ahmed, and S. Avancha. Distgnn: Scalable distributed training for large-scale gr aph neural networks. In SC, 2021

work page 2021