GraphDecide: Benchmarking System One Models on Graph Tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly asked to reason over structured data such as graphs, yet how reliably they can carry out multi-step graph algorithms in language remains unclear. Existing evaluations tend to use simple tasks on small graphs, to score code generation rather than reasoning over the graph itself, or to fix a single input format. We introduce Graph Theory Bench (GT Bench), a benchmark covering 24 classical graph problems in 44 task-structure settings, with over 100,000 examples across four representations: natural language, structured language, adjacency list, and adjacency matrix. Evaluating eight LLMs on GT Bench shows that accuracy is strongly tied to the input representation, that the best representation shifts with graph density, size, and topology as well as with the model, and that this sensitivity persists, attenuated, in the strongest reasoning models. Building on these observations, we propose the Graph Theory Agent (GTA), which pairs a preference-trained representation selector with plan-and-decompose scaffolding around a frozen executor LLM. GTA lifts Phi-4 from 53.5% to 69.1% on the benchmark's easy split and from 33.0% to 41.5% on its hard split, outperforming eight prompting and agent baselines, and transfers without retraining to GraCoRe and NLGraph. Code for benchmark generation and evaluation: https://github.com/xzx34/GTA. The project homepage is available at https://xzx34.github.io/gta/.

Graph analysis underlies many applications whose answers cannot be looked up in a single record or retrieved along a path: laundering rings, drug repurposing, user preference, and scientific theme are all inferred from a node together with its neighbourhood. We introduce GraphInfer-Bench, a benchmark for whether LLMs can perform this graph inference: producing an open-ended answer that no single node supports and no path retrieves. Existing graph-QA protocols cannot test this capability: algorithm simulation, node classification, single-node description, KG-QA, and GraphRAG all admit answers retrievable from one node or along a path. GraphInfer-Bench defines five tasks along Description (what a region is) and Comparison (how regions differ), each constructed so the ground truth lives in no single node. The release contains 42,000 samples across six real-world graphs, produced automatically and screened by a four-layer quality-control protocol. We evaluate four method families against the same tasks: graph-token alignment models, zero-shot frontier closed-source LLMs, Graph2Text supervised fine-tuning, and plain GNNs as a structural reference. No method family closes the gap. Graph-token alignment partially handles description tasks (relational, theme) but collapses on comparison tasks. Frontier LLMs lead on outlier detection and community partition among LLM-based methods but lag on masked-node prediction. Graph2Text SFT is the strongest LLM-based method on the description side yet falls behind frontier LLMs on comparison. Across every task, plain GNNs match or beat the strongest LLM-based row, with the largest margin on community detection. GraphInfer-Bench surfaces graph inference as an open capability gap rather than a property of any one architecture.

Large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly explored for graph computation, where tasks require reasoning over structured relationships and algorithmic operations. Yet, it remains unclear when LLMs can reliably support such computation and how they should be incorporated into graph-solving pipelines. Existing surveys at the intersection of LLMs and graphs primarily focus on graph learning, text-attributed graphs, or graph-language modeling. To bridge this gap, we provide a comprehensive review of LLMs for graph computation through a role-based taxonomy. Specifically, we identify two major paradigms: i) LLMs as executors, where models directly solve graph tasks from graph descriptions and instructions; and ii) LLMs as planners, where models formulate problems, decompose reasoning steps, and invoke external tools or agents for execution. Based on this taxonomy, we analyze the strengths and limitations of current methods. Our review indicates that LLMs are promising for simple, small-scale tasks, but remain unreliable for large-scale and exactness-demanding tasks. Finally, we summarize available datasets and suggest four future directions.