Papers › Exploring Graph Tasks with Pure LLMs: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Investigation

Exploring Graph Tasks with Pure LLMs: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Investigation

26 Feb 2025arXiv:2502.18771archive 2025-07-28

Yuxiang Wang, Xinnan Dai, Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma

Graph-structured data has become increasingly prevalent across various domains, raising the demand for effective models to handle graph tasks like node classification and link prediction. Traditional graph learning models like Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have made significant strides, but their capabilities in handling graph data remain limited in certain contexts. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising candidates for graph tasks, yet most studies focus primarily on performance benchmarks and fail to address their broader potential, including their ability to handle limited data, their transferability across tasks, and their robustness. In this work, we provide a comprehensive exploration of LLMs applied to graph tasks. We evaluate the performance of pure LLMs, including those without parameter optimization and those fine-tuned with instructions, across various scenarios. Our analysis goes beyond accuracy, assessing LLM ability to perform in few-shot/zero-shot settings, transfer across domains, understand graph structures, and demonstrate robustness in challenging scenarios. We conduct extensive experiments with 16 graph learning models alongside 6 LLMs (e.g., Llama3B, GPT-4o, Qwen-plus), comparing their performance on datasets like Cora, PubMed, ArXiv, and Products. Our findings show that LLMs, particularly those with instruction tuning, outperform traditional models in few-shot settings, exhibit strong domain transferability, and demonstrate excellent generalization and robustness. This work offers valuable insights into the capabilities of LLMs for graph learning, highlighting their advantages and potential for real-world applications, and paving the way for future research in this area. Codes and datasets are released in https://github.com/myflashbarry/LLM-benchmarking.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

12 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 12 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from myflashbarry/LLM-benchmarking. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections