SimTeG: A Frustratingly Simple Approach Improves Textual Graph Learning
Keyu Duan, Qian Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, Shuicheng Yan, Wei Tsang Ooi,, Qizhe Xie, Junxian He

TL;DR
SimTeG introduces a straightforward method that enhances textual graph learning by fine-tuning pre-trained language models and using their embeddings, leading to significant performance improvements across tasks and benchmarks.
Contribution
The paper proposes a simple yet effective approach that leverages supervised fine-tuning of language models to generate node features, improving GNN performance without complex frameworks or tasks.
Findings
Significant performance gains on node classification and link prediction tasks.
Effective across multiple graph benchmarks and GNN architectures.
Simplifies the feature extraction process for textual graphs.
Abstract
Textual graphs (TGs) are graphs whose nodes correspond to text (sentences or documents), which are widely prevalent. The representation learning of TGs involves two stages: (i) unsupervised feature extraction and (ii) supervised graph representation learning. In recent years, extensive efforts have been devoted to the latter stage, where Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have dominated. However, the former stage for most existing graph benchmarks still relies on traditional feature engineering techniques. More recently, with the rapid development of language models (LMs), researchers have focused on leveraging LMs to facilitate the learning of TGs, either by jointly training them in a computationally intensive framework (merging the two stages), or designing complex self-supervised training tasks for feature extraction (enhancing the first stage). In this work, we present SimTeG, a…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2024
+ Exploring the impact of PLMs on GNN learning and the importance of text attributes in various graph tasks is a meaningful task and has great potential given the recent breakthrough in large language models. + The proposed idea (i.e., training PLMs with LoRA + training GNNs) is simple but intuitive and well-motivated, which should be appreciated. + Experiments are quite comprehensive. Datasets from different domains (i.e., academic and e-commerce) are considered. Various GNN backbones and PLM
- Statistical significance tests are missing. It is unclear whether the gaps between SimTeG and the baselines are statistically significant or not. In fact, some gaps in Tables 1-3 are subtle and unlikely significant given the reported standard deviation. - An important baseline, GraphFormers [1], is not compared. - Only LoRA is examined in the proposed method as the PEFT strategy. It is unclear whether other strategies, such as Prefix-Tuning and Adapter, can also help tackle the overfitting p
1. This paper studied an interesting problem about improving textual graph learning with language models (LMs). The author provides a thorough literature review in this domain. 2. Compared with previous methods for designing novel architecture or complex tasks, this paper proposes a simple and effective, where the authors perform Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) on a language model. Then, they utilize this fine-tuned language model to generate node representations from the text by omittin
1. The technical contribution of the paper appears to be limited, especially when considering the work of [1]. The core idea closely mirrors that of [1], which also leverages embeddings learned from a language model to enhance the learning of textual graph data via a variational expectation-maximization joint-training framework. The distinguishing factor in the proposed method is its two-step approach. However, I struggle to identify substantial contributions that differentiate it from [1]. 2.
1. The paper is very clearly written and easy to follow. 2. The proposed framework is simple and useful.
1. Lack of comparison with existing works: GraphFormers [1], Patton [2]. There is another line of work [1,2] that tries to use only a language model to capture both semantic information and structure information in a textual graph. It would be more comprehensive to see how the performance comparison is between SimTeG and those methods. 2. Excitement of the findings and studies. I appreciate the authors’ detailed study of the two-stage pipeline. However, the finding is quite straightforward and
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Neural Networks · Topic Modeling · Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
