GraphSeek: Next-Generation Graph Analytics with LLMs

Maciej Besta, Łukasz Jarmocik, Orest Hrycyna, Shachar Klaiman, Konrad Mączka, Robert Gerstenberger, Jürgen Müller, Piotr Nyczyk, Hubert Niewiadomski, Torsten Hoefler · Feb 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Graphs are foundational across domains but remain hard to use without deep expertise. LLMs promise accessible natural language (NL) graph analytics, yet they fail to process industry-scale property graphs effectively and efficiently: such datasets are large, highly heterogeneous, structurally complex, and evolve dynamically. To address this, we devise a novel abstraction for complex multi-query analytics over such graphs. Its key idea is to replace brittle generation of graph queries directly from NL with planning over a Semantic Catalog that describes both the graph schema and the graph operations. Concretely, this induces a clean separation between a Semantic Plane for LLM planning and broader reasoning, and an Execution Plane for deterministic, database-grade query execution over the full dataset and tool implementations. This design yields substantial gains in both token efficiency and task effectiveness even with small-context LLMs. We use this abstraction as the basis of the first LLM-enhanced graph analytics framework called GraphSeek. GraphSeek achieves substantially higher success rates (e.g., 86% over enhanced LangChain) and points toward the next generation of affordable and accessible graph analytics that unify LLM reasoning with database-grade execution over large and complex property graphs.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.