From Compression to Execution: What Helps Large Language Models Digest Urban Graphs for Spatial QA?

Urban graphs are central to smart-city analytics, but they remain difficult for language-guided models, specifically LLMs, to use effectively in spatial question answering. This paper studies how urban graph structure can be exposed to such models through different graph-language interaction designs. We construct a controlled multi-task urban graph QA benchmark over three cities that covers adjacency count, adjacency binary, reachability, shortest path, and centrality, and compare seven mechanisms spanning compression, memory, retrieval, execution, and structural reasoning, alongside text-only and GNN-only baselines. Within this benchmark, methods using more explicit structural evidence generally outperform compression and memory-based approaches: Path Tokens reaches 78.1% average accuracy, Graph Tool 87.4%, and Counterfactual 71.7%, while centrality remains the most difficult task. These results should be interpreted as a comparison of graph-language interaction designs rather than a fully input-matched ablation, but they suggest that exposing task-relevant structural information is an important factor for urban spatial QA.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-xii-4-w2-2026-155-2026
Primary Topic
Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

From Compression to Execution: What Helps Large Language Models Digest Urban Graphs for Spatial QA?

Ali Mansourian, Rachid Oucheikh
ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences
Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
article

From Compression to Execution: What Helps Large Language Models Digest Urban Graphs for Spatial QA?

Ali Mansourian, Rachid Oucheikh
article en

Abstract

Urban graphs are central to smart-city analytics, but they remain difficult for language-guided models, specifically LLMs, to use effectively in spatial question answering. This paper studies how urban graph structure can be exposed to such models through different graph-language interaction designs. We construct a controlled multi-task urban graph QA benchmark over three cities that covers adjacency count, adjacency binary, reachability, shortest path, and centrality, and compare seven mechanisms spanning compression, memory, retrieval, execution, and structural reasoning, alongside text-only and GNN-only baselines. Within this benchmark, methods using more explicit structural evidence generally outperform compression and memory-based approaches: Path Tokens reaches 78.1% average accuracy, Graph Tool 87.4%, and Counterfactual 71.7%, while centrality remains the most difficult task. These results should be interpreted as a comparison of graph-language interaction designs rather than a fully input-matched ablation, but they suggest that exposing task-relevant structural information is an important factor for urban spatial QA.

ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesVol. XII-4/W2-2026(0)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

From Compression to Execution: What Helps Large Language Models Digest Urban Graphs for Spatial QA? — Ali Mansourian, Rachid Oucheikh · ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS