Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in aligning and understanding multimodal signals, yet their potential to reason over structured data, where multimodal entities are connected through explicit relational graphs, remains largely underexplored. Unlocking this capability is crucial for real-world applications such as social networks, recommendation systems, and scientific discovery, where multimodal information is inherently structured. To bridge this gap, we present GraphVLM, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate and harness the capabilities of VLMs for multimodal graph learning (MMGL). GraphVLM investigates three complementary paradigms for integrating VLMs with graph reasoning: (1) VLM-as-Encoder, which enriches graph neural networks through multimodal feature fusion; (2) VLM-as-Aligner, which bridges modalities in latent or linguistic space to facilitate LLM-based structured reasoning; and (3) VLM-as-Predictor, which directly employs VLMs as multimodal backbones for graph learning tasks. Extensive experiments across six datasets from diverse domains demonstrate that VLMs enhance multimodal graph learning via all three roles. Among these paradigms, VLM-as-Predictor achieves the most substantial and consistent performance gains, revealing the untapped potential of vision-language models as a new foundation for multimodal graph learning. The benchmark code is publicly available at https://github.com/oamyjin/GraphVLM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the GraphVLM benchmark with a timeline of graph learning research. Existing graph learning methods are categorized into three groups based on the prediction backbone. The bottom-left corner illustrates the functional roles VLMs play in each category.
Benchmarks
Backbones
VLM Roles
GNN
LLM
VLM
Encoder
Aligner
Predictor
Pre-trained
Fine-tuned
Prompt
Latent
Zero-shot
SFT
MM-Bench [ 42 ]
✓
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
MAGB [ 37 ]
✓
✗
✓
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
GraphVLM
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of existing multimodal graph benchmarks and their coverage of MMGL method backbones and VLM roles.
Model
Encoder
Movies
Toys
Grocery
Arts
CDs
Reddit
MLP
Imagebind
40.14 ± 0.14
52.30 ± 0.45
65.17 ± 0.17
74.79 ± 0.37
30.76 ± 0.90
42.62 ± 0.27
CLIP
45.12 ± 0.12
74.59 ± 0.09
84.67 ± 0.04
84.28 ± 0.17
52.22 ± 0.05
76.70 ± 0.25
CLIP-F
47.46 ± 0.08
73.22 ± 0.09
82.79 ± 0.05
82.66 ± 0.07
48.74 ± 0.07
79.77 ± 0.10
CLIP-F-S
39.73 ± 0.12
59.88 ± 0.25
76.94 ± 0.03
84.89 ± 0.06
49.89 ± 0.07
79.71 ± 0.18
GCN
Imagebind
45.64 ± 0.56
71.02 ± 0.13
79.01 ± 0.07
75.01 ± 0.16
47.42 ± 0.43
70.89 ± 0.20
CLIP
46.97 ± 0.24
74.36 ± 0.07
79.59 ± 0.29
76.76 ± 0.21
52.68 ± 0.03
66.06 ± 0.11
Table 2: Node classification accuracy (%) comparison under different enhanced encoder settings. Bold values denote the highest performance within the same model and dataset setup. Blue cells indicate the highest result within each dataset.
Figure 2: Average accuracy (%) across six datasets under different modalities for GNN-based methods, using CLIP as the encoder.
Model
Input
Movies
Toys
Grocery
Arts
CDs
GraphPrompter
[regular]file
46.36
74.08
85.00
84.41
46.27
[regular]file ✧
45.55
76.56
85.47
64.87
52.06
[regular]file ✧ s
46.12
75.07
80.57
56.61
52.58
[regular]file ✦
45.88
70.96
84.91
85.85
45.73
LLaGA
[regular]file
49.57
77.51
86.25
89.32
53.12
[regular]file ✧
48.73
74.97
86.16
76.34
54.45
Table 3: Node classification accuracy (%) of GraphLLM-based methods under different input and alignment strategies. [regular]file indicates the text modality, while represents the vision modality. ✧ indicates prompt-level alignment, ✧ s represents structure-aware prompt-level alignment, and ✦ denotes latent-space alignment. Bold denotes the highest performance within the same model and dataset setup. Blue cells indicate the highest result within each dataset.
VLM
SFT
Fusion
Movies
Toys
Grocery
Arts
CDs
Reddit
LLaVA-1.5-7B
✗
13.19
47.52
57.88
72.96
41.30
34.82
✓
45.58
74.32
85.89
84.47
53.55
82.45
✓
[regular]file ✧
44.65
74.82
85.91
82.94
53.73
82.76
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
✗
14.96
58.27
68.79
69.34
34.94
34.33
✓
54.21
82.56
88.32
93.37
54.86
67.48
✓
[regular]file ✧
53.10
80.38
88.53
92.43
54.13
67.04
Table 4: Node classification accuracy (%) comparison under different VLM models, structure data modality, and structural fusion settings. Models are evaluated with and without SFT. ✧ indicates prompt-level structural fusion, and ✦ denotes latent-space structural fusion. Bold values mark the best performance within each model setup, while Blue cells highlight the overall best results across all baseline settings for each dataset. Underline indicates the higher performance of fusion approaches under the same neighbor modality for each dataset in Qwen-VL-7B.
Figure 3: The impact of different VLM-based methods with multimodal structure information at the prompt level for node classification tasks, using Qwen-VL-7B as the backbone.
Figure 4: Performance comparison of three VLM roles.
Figure 5: Extra performance gain of structure-awareness.
Dataset
#Nodes
#Edges
Avg.#Degree
#Classes
Domain
Movies
16,672
218,390
26
19
E-commerce
Toys
20,695
126,886
12
18
E-commerce
Grocery
84,379
693,154
16
20
E-commerce
Arts
28,195
197,428
14
7
E-commerce
CDs
36,272
844,878
47
15
E-commerce
Reddit
99,638
1,167,188
23
50
Social Network
Table 5: Dataset statistics.
Learning Rate
#Neighbors
Epoch
Batch Size
Temperature
Optimizer
1×10−5
5
1
16
0.5
Adam
Table 6: Training hyperparameters for the CLIP-F-S model.
Model
Settings
Movies
CDs
Grocery
Arts
MLP
Text+Image (CLIP)
4.90
6.85
9.17
14.14
GCN
Text+Image (CLIP)
7.69
10.05
22.02
12.55
GraphSAGE
Text+Image (CLIP)
3.73
6.20
5.56
20.69
MLP
Text+Image (CLIP-F-S)
5.50
8.79
14.12
18.14
GCN
Text+Image (CLIP-F-S)
3.16
7.61
8.66
18.12
GraphSAGE
Text+Image (CLIP-F-S)
1.20
9.85
11.40
18.14
Table 7: Transfer ability comparison: Node classification accuracy (%) when trained on Toys and evaluated on other datasets.
Stage
GNN-based
LLM-based
VLM-based
GCN
SAGE
MMGCN
MGAT
LLaGA
GraphGPT
Qwen-VL
Qwen2.5-VL
Training
~2min
~2min
~3min
~3min
~17min
~60min
~5h
~5h
Inference
~10s
~10s
~15s
~20s
~10min
~30min
~20min
~20min
Table 8: Efficiency comparison on the Movies dataset.
Movies:
<image input> Given an image of a movie from the Amazon movies dataset , generate a concise and detailed summary. Focus on describing key visual concepts. Ensure the summary is informative and useful for understanding the product as described in user reviews, without losing critical details or introducing unnecessary information.
Toys:
<image input> Given an image of a toy from the Amazon toys dataset , generate a concise and detailed summary. Focus on describing key visual concepts. Ensure the summary is informative and useful for understanding the product as described in user reviews, without losing critical details or introducing unnecessary information.
Grocery:
<image input> Given an image of a grocery from the Amazon grocery dataset , generate a concise and detailed summary. Focus on describing key visual concepts. Ensure the summary is informative and useful for understanding the product as described in user reviews, without losing critical details or introducing unnecessary information.
CDs:
<image input> Given an image of a CD from the Amazon CD dataset , generate a concise and detailed summary. Focus on describing key visual concepts. Ensure the summary is informative and useful for understanding the product as described in user reviews, without losing critical details or introducing unnecessary information.
Arts:
<image input> Given an image of an artwork from the Amazon Art dataset , generate a concise and detailed summary. Focus on describing key visual concepts. Ensure the summary is informative and useful for understanding the product as described in user reviews, without losing critical details or introducing unnecessary information.
Reddit:
<image input> Given an image of a post from the Reddit dataset , generate a concise and detailed summary. Focus on describing key visual concepts. Ensure the summary is informative and useful for understanding the post as described in the caption, without losing critical details or introducing unnecessary information.
Table 9: Prompts used to generate a text description of the image by VLM
Movies:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon Movies dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> Questions: Using the title, description, and image summary of the product provided above, create an informative and concise description that effectively highlights the product’s key features.
Toys:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon toys dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> Questions: Using the title, description, and image summary of the product provided above, create an informative and concise description that effectively highlights the product’s key features.
Grocery:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon grocery dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> Questions: Using the title, description, and image summary of the product provided above, create an informative and concise description that effectively highlights the product’s key features.
CDs:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon CD dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> Questions: Using the title, description, and image summary of the product provided above, create an informative and concise description that effectively highlights the product’s key features.
Arts:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon Art dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> Questions: Using the title, description, and image summary of the product provided above, create an informative and concise description that effectively highlights the product’s key features.
Reddit:
Given the text information of a post from the Reddit dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> Questions: Using the caption and image summary of the post provided above, create an informative and concise description that effectively highlights the post’s key features.
Table 10: Prompts for the non-structure-aware aligner cases.
Movies:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon movies dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> . Also given the information of co-purchased or co-reviewed products: text information: <neighbor text information> , image summary: <neighbor image summary> (or, if unavailable: ’No co-purchased or co-reviewed product information is available.’) Questions: Using the product’s title, description, and image summary provided above, along with any co-purchase or co-review data, generate a concise yet informative description of the product.
Toys:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon toys dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> . Also given the information of co-purchased or co-reviewed products: text information: <neighbor text information> , image summary: <neighbor image summary> (or, if unavailable: ’No co-purchased or co-reviewed product information is available.’) Questions: Using the product’s title, description, and image summary provided above, along with any co-purchase or co-review data, generate a concise yet informative description of the product.
Grocery:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon grocery dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> . Also given the information of co-purchased or co-reviewed products: text information: <neighbor text information> , image summary: <neighbor image summary> (or, if unavailable: ’No co-purchased or co-reviewed product information is available.’) Questions: Using the product’s title, description, and image summary provided above, along with any co-purchase or co-review data, generate a concise yet informative description of the product.
CDs:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon CD dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> . Also given the information of co-purchased or co-reviewed products: text information: <neighbor text information> , image summary: <neighbor image summary> (or, if unavailable: ’No co-purchased or co-reviewed product information is available.’) Questions: Using the product’s title, description, and image summary provided above, along with any co-purchase or co-review data, generate a concise yet informative description of the product.
Arts:
Given the text information of a product from the Amazon Art dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> . Also given the information of co-purchased or co-reviewed products: text information: <neighbor text information> , image summary: <neighbor image summary> (or, if unavailable: ’No co-purchased or co-reviewed product information is available.’) Questions: Using the product’s title, description, and image summary provided above, along with any co-purchase or co-review data, generate a concise yet informative description of the product.
Reddit:
Given the text information of a post from the Reddit dataset: <text information> . Image summary: <image summary> . Also given the information of co-commented posts: text information: <neighbor text information> , image summary: <neighbor image summary> (or, if unavailable: ’No co-commented post information is available.’) Questions: Using the post’s caption and image summary provided above, along with any co-commented data, generate a concise yet informative description of the post.
Table 11: Prompts for the structure-aware aligner cases.
Movies / Toys / Grocery / CDs / Arts:
Given the target product information on Amazon : Picture: <image input> Title and description: <text information> . Question: Based on the target product’s picture, title, and description, which category does the target product belong to? Choose from the following options: <candidates set> . Assistant: <truth label>
Reddit:
Given the target post information on Reddit : Picture: <image input> Caption: <text information> . Question: Based on the target post’s picture and caption, which category does the target post belong to? Choose from the following options: <candidates set> . Assistant: <truth label>
Table 12: Prompts for the non-structure-aware predictor case.
Movies / Toys / Grocery / CDs / Arts:
Given the target product information on Amazon : Picture: <image input> Title and description: <text information> . Co-purchased or co-reviewed products: Picture1: <image input> ; Title1: <text information> ; Picture2: <image input> ; Title2: <text information> ; Picture3: <image input> ; Title3: <text information> . Question: Based on the target product’s picture, title, description, and related products, which category does the target product belong to? Choose from the following options: <candidates set> . Assistant: <truth label>
Reddit:
Given the target post information on Reddit : Picture: <image input> Caption: <text information> . Co-commented posts: Picture1: <image input> ; Caption1: <text information> ; Picture2: <image input> ; Caption2: <text information> ; Picture3: <image input> ; Caption3: <text information> . Question: Based on the target post’s picture, caption, and related posts, which category does the target post belong to? Choose from the following options: <candidates set> . Assistant: <truth label>
Table 13: Prompts for the structure-aware predictor case.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for multimodal reasoning. Yet, most existing methods still rely on pretrained vision-language models (VLMs) to encode image-text pairs in isolation, ignoring the relational structure that real-world multimodal data naturally form. This motivates reasoning on multimodal graphs (MMGs), where each node has textual and visual attributes and edges provide structural cues. Enabling LLM-based reasoning on such heterogeneous multimodal signals while preserving graph topology introduces two key challenges: resolving weak cross-modal consistency and handling heterogeneous modality preference. To address this, we propose Mario, a unified framework that simultaneously resolves the two above challenges and enables effective LLM-based reasoning over MMGs. Mario consists of two innovative stages. Firstly, a graph-conditioned VLM design that jointly refines textual and visual features through fine-grained cross-modal contrastive learning guided by graph topology. Secondly, a modality-adaptive graph instruction tuning mechanism that organizes aligned multimodal features into graph-aware instruction views and employs a learnable router to surface, for each node and its neighborhood, the most informative modality configuration to the LLM. Extensive experiments across diverse MMG benchmarks demonstrate that Mario consistently outperforms state-of-the-art graph models in both supervised and zero-shot scenarios for node classification and link prediction. The code will be made available at https://github.com/sunyuanfu/Mario.
Yuanfu Sun, Kang Li, Pengkang Guo +2
New York University Shanghai · New York University · Tsinghua University +1
Real-world multimodal knowledge graphs (MKGs) are inherently heterogeneous, modeling entities that are associated with diverse modalities. Traditional knowledge graph embedding (KGE) methods excel at learning continuous representations of entities and relations, yet they are typically designed for unimodal settings. Recent approaches extend KGE to multimodal settings but remain constrained, often processing modalities in isolation, resulting in weak cross-modal alignment, and relying on simplistic assumptions such as uniform modality availability across entities. Vision-Language Models (VLMs) offer a powerful way to align diverse modalities within a shared embedding space. We propose Vision-Language Knowledge Graph Embeddings (VL-KGE), a framework that integrates cross-modal alignment from VLMs with structured relational modeling to learn unified multimodal representations of knowledge graphs. Experiments on WN9-IMG and two novel fine art MKGs, WikiArt-MKG-v1 and WikiArt-MKG-v2, demonstrate that VL-KGE consistently improves over traditional unimodal and multimodal KGE methods in link prediction tasks. Our results highlight the value of VLMs for multimodal KGE, enabling more robust and structured reasoning over large-scale heterogeneous knowledge graphs.
Recent Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across diverse vision-language tasks, creating an urgent need for more challenging benchmarks. Yet existing evaluations still provide limited insight into whether these models can truly reason over structured visual information. Visual Graph Reasoning (VGR) offers a compelling testbed for this challenge, requiring models to integrate perception, structural understanding, and multi-step reasoning over graph-based visual inputs. However, prior VGR benchmarks often reduce the task to visual perception followed by text-based reasoning, restrict evaluation to single-image settings, rely on answer-only metrics, and underrepresent realistic graph-centric scenarios. To bridge the gap, we introduce GraphVerse, a unified benchmark that jointly evaluates perception, visual reasoning, and text-based graph reasoning in MLLMs under both single-image and paired-image settings. At its core is a suite of Graph-centric Image Editing (GIE) strategies that modify graph images while preserving their semantics, turning them into active tests of visual reasoning. We further propose VGR-Score, a process-sensitive metric that evaluates reasoning quality beyond final-answer accuracy. Extensive experiments reveal several key limitations of current MLLMs in VGR, while also validating the effectiveness of GIE strategies and the transferability of GraphVerse to broader multimodal reasoning capabilities. The code is available at https://github.com/sunyuanfu/GraphVerse.
Yuanfu Sun, Yuanhang Ren, Kang Li +5
New York University · Sensetime Research · Tsinghua University +3