Graph neural networks (GNNs) are widely used to represent complex interactions and relationships among entities. We investigate a multimodal model that combines two complementary ideas: a self-supervised method that enables a GNN encoder pretrained on one dataset to operate directly on another dataset with a different node-feature dimensionality, without rebuilding the model or realigning the data; and an alternating optimization method that updates a language-model module in an E-step and a GNN module in an M-step, rather than jointly training a large language model and a GNN end to end on a large graph. Despite expectations, the combined model did not sufficiently improve predictive performance. We identify six factors: (1) an external anchor in the E-step has a strength-safety trade-off: a weak anchor has little effect, whereas an overly strong anchor can damage the graph representation; (2) the knowledge of the E-step teacher is not injected directly into the GCN embedding Z; (3) the representation space constructed in the M-step is not optimized for the same objective as the E-step teacher space, resulting in a compromise representation for target classification; (4) GCN propagation averages a node's own textual information with information from its neighbors; (5) cosine alignment does not guarantee axes that are discriminative for classification, so stronger geometric alignment with the E-step text anchor need not sufficiently improve the target decision boundary or classification performance; and (6) the force that preserves the source-side self-supervised geometry in the M-step conflicts with the force that moves the representation toward the E-step teacher. We support these observations through a staged set of experiments that varies the influence of the E-step.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of FUG+GLEM-ITT training. An independent TextHead that does not imitate the GCN output is first pretrained for 60 epochs using raw text-hash features, source labels, and dropout-based self-supervision. FUG is then warmed up for 60 epochs with its self-supervised objective, followed by six EM-like iterations. In the E-like step of each iteration, TextHead is refreshed for two epochs to produce an updated text anchor. In the M-step, the FUG encoder is updated for 18 epochs using the FUG self-supervised loss and auxiliary losses for the TextHead, MLP-only, raw text-hash, and external text anchors: LM=0.80LFUG+1.80Ltext+1.10LMLP+0.70Lraw+0.25Lext . The updated FUG parameters are carried forward to the next iteration.
Experiment
Method
Full GCN ( Z )
Raw Text Hash
Raw MPNet
Ensemble
Baseline
FUG-only
0.7459
0.7623
–
0.7702
FUG+GLEM
FUG+GLEM-ITT
0.7480
0.7623
–
0.7717
Table 1: Cross-domain transfer performance between the FUG baseline and FUG+GLEM-ITT.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Experiment
Method
Full GCN ( Z )
Raw Text Hash
Raw MPNet
Ensemble
Exp1
FUG-only
0.7459
0.7623
–
0.7702
Exp2
GCN pseudo-( Z ) imitation TextHead
0.7445
0.7623
–
0.7695
Exp3
Raw text-hash external anchor
0.7437
0.7623
–
0.7717
Exp4
Frozen MPNet external teacher
0.7437
0.7623
0.7888
0.7724 / 0.7845 a
Appendix
Table 2: Comparison of cross-domain transfer performance across experimental settings.
Representation or difference
Exp2
Exp3
Exp4
FUG+GLEM-ITT
Test accuracy of each representation
Raw Text Hash
0.7623
0.7623
0.7623
0.7623
MLP-only (before GCN propagation)
0.7380
0.7380
0.7373
0.7359
Full GCN Z (after GCN propagation)
0.7445
0.7437
0.7437
0.7480
Raw MPNet
–
–
0.7888
–
Ensemble (GCN Z + Text Hash)
0.7695
0.7717
0.7724
0.7717
Appendix
Table 3: Test accuracy at different representation stages under the OpenAlex linear probe.
Method
Raw Text Hash
MLP-only
Full GCN ( Z )
Ensemble
FUG-only
0.7623
0.7480
0.7459
0.7702
FUG+GLEM-ITT
0.7623
0.7359
0.7480
0.7717
Appendix
Table 4: Representation-level classification performance of FUG-only and FUG+GLEM-ITT on OpenAlex.
Table 5: Changes in alignment metrics and Full GCN- Z classification performance on OpenAlex.
Candidate
valid_bacc
ood_cos
text_cos
Composite
Difference from Warmup ( valid_bacc )
Selected
Warmup
0.4788
0.0003
−0.0166
0.1132
0.0000
–
em1
0.4707
0.2826
0.4404
0.3927
−0.0081
–
em2
0.4715
0.3967
0.5576
0.4797
−0.0073
–
em3
0.4765
0.4554
0.6097
0.5224
−0.0023
–
em4
0.4723
0.4742
0.6328
0.5372
−0.0065
–
em5
0.4746
0.4807
0.6444
0.5447
−0.0042
–
Appendix
Table 6: Candidate-model metrics and the FUG+GLEM-ITT model-selection result.
Experiment
Candidate checkpoints
Selection score
Notes
FUG+GLEM-ITT
Warmup, EM1–EM6, SWA
S=0.25Balval+0.35CosMLP+0.40CosTextHead
Warmup, the end of each EM iteration, and the SWA model obtained by averaging model states after the EM iterations are candidates. The final checkpoint maximizes a composite of source-domain validation balanced accuracy and the mean cosine similarities, computed over all source-graph nodes, between Full GCN Z and the MLP-only and TextHead representations.
Exp1
After epochs 10,20,…,160,168
S=Balval
Selects the FUG-only checkpoint with the highest source validation balanced accuracy.
Exp2
Warmup, EM1–EM6
S=Balval
The cosine similarity between GCN Z and the TextHead output is recorded but not used for selection.
Exp3
Warmup, EM1–EM6
Simpl=0.35Balval+0.30CosMLP
Cosine similarity to the raw text-hash anchor is recorded, but it is not passed to the shared selection function as text_cos and is therefore absent from the selection score.
Exp4
Warmup, EM1–EM6
S=0.35Balval+0.30CosMLP+0.35CosMPNet
The cosine similarity between GCN Z and the frozen MPNet anchor is passed as text_cos and included in the selection score.
Appendix
Table 7: Checkpoint-selection procedures for FUG+GLEM-ITT and Exp1–Exp4.
Text-attributed graphs (TAGs) underlie real-world applications such as citation networks, social media, and e-commerce. Few-shot graph learning on TAGs is hard: with only a handful of labels per class and the rest of the graph unannotated, neither GNNs nor LLMs can learn well on their own. GNNs read topology and fail on cold nodes; LLMs read text and fail on text-ambiguous nodes. Existing LLM-GNN methods all follow the same recipe: designate one model as the golden teacher and use its outputs (e.g., features or pseudo-labels) to supervise the other. We argue this golden-teacher assumption breaks under sparse supervision: neither model is golden, and treating either as such transfers its blind spots into the student. We therefore ask: can we avoid designating either model as the golden teacher, and still perform effective graph learning? We answer with LLM-GNN Co-Teaching, a bidirectional co-teaching framework in which neither model is fixed as teacher. The GNN and LLM exchange their most confident pseudo-labels under an architecture-specific small-loss criterion, and both update every round. Supervision is then mined from the trajectory: whenever a node moves from cross-model contradiction at round t to cross-model agreement at round t+1, the LLM's two answers on the same input form a preference pair (old contradicting self < new peer-endorsed self) for DPO training. We call this Round-based Pseudo-Label Preference Optimization (RPL-PO). On six benchmarks, LLM-GNN Co-Teaching consistently outperforms GNN-as-Judge and all prior methods, with absolute 3-shot gains of 7.86% on Cora and 7.73% on ogbn-arxiv; improvements carry over to 5-shot and to zero-shot cross-dataset transfer. Error-structure analysis further shows that abandoning the golden-teacher assumption substantially improves the LLM's graph learning capability on challenging samples.
Zhuoyi Peng, Hanlin Gu, Lixin Fan +1
1The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · 2WeBank
Graph-based text classification models typically rely on local neighborhood aggregation and overlook global community structure, despite semantic document graphs exhibiting strong class-consistent clustering. Ignoring this can blur class boundaries and lead to over-smoothing. We propose ModTGCN, a modularity-aware graph neural network for text classification that jointly optimizes cross-entropy and a modularity-based auxiliary objective to promote class-coherent document communities while preserving discriminative representations. The modularity term is computed on a document-document similarity graph derived from transformer embeddings (pretrained or fine-tuned). To improve scalability, we decouple the original heterogeneous TextGCN graph into separate document-word and word-word components, achieving 2x-10x faster training. We further study graph construction strategies, label-aware edge reweighting, and supervision choices for modularity optimization. Experiments on five benchmarks show consistent gains, with larger improvements on complex, low homophily datasets such as Ohsumed and 20NG.
We propose a novel benchmarking methodology for graph neural networks (GNNs) based on the graph alignment problem, a combinatorial optimization task that generalizes graph isomorphism by aligning two unlabeled graphs to maximize overlapping edges. We frame this problem as a self-supervised learning task and present several methods to generate graph alignment datasets using synthetic random graphs and real-world graph datasets from multiple domains. For a given graph dataset, we generate a family of graph alignment datasets with increasing difficulty, allowing us to rank the performance of various architectures. Our experiments prove that there is an optimal task difficulty for having a statistically relevant ranking of different models and that, even on a structure-only task, anisotropic models perform better compared to isotropic ones. To further prove that our synthetic task capture meaningful information, we show its effectiveness for self-supervised GNN pre-training: the learned node embeddings can be leveraged as positional encodings by transformers for graph regression or can be used to reconstruct the full structure of the graph with 98% accuracy. To support reproducibility and further research, we provide an open-source Python package to generate graph alignment datasets and benchmark new GNN architectures. The source code is available at https://github.com/adrien-lagesse/graph-alignment-benchmark.
Adrien Lagesse, Marc Lelarge
INRIA, École Normale Supérieure - PSL, Paris, France.