DAGPrompT: Pushing the Limits of Graph Prompting with a Distribution-aware Graph Prompt Tuning Approach
Abstract
The "pre-train then fine-tune" approach has advanced GNNs by enabling general knowledge capture without task-specific labels. However, an objective gap between pre-training and downstream tasks limits its effectiveness. Recent graph prompting methods aim to close this gap through task reformulations and learnable prompts. Despite this, they struggle with complex graphs like heterophily graphs. Freezing the GNN encoder can reduce the impact of prompting, while simple prompts fail to handle diverse hop-level distributions. This paper identifies two key challenges in adapting graph prompting methods for complex graphs: (i) adapting the model to new distributions in downstream tasks to mitigate pre-training and fine-tuning discrepancies from heterophily and (ii) customizing prompts for hop-specific node requirements. To overcome these challenges, we propose Distribution-aware Graph Prompt Tuning (DAGPrompT), which integrates a GLoRA module for optimizing the GNN encoder’s projection matrix and message-passing schema through low-rank adaptation. DAGPrompT also incorporates hop-specific prompts accounting for varying graph structures and distributions among hops. Evaluations on 10 datasets and 14 baselines demonstrate that DAGPrompT improves accuracy by up to 4.79\
Benchmark Results
Tested on 2 datasets
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9910
±0.0030 | |
| 2 | ID-GNN+BEC | 0.9830
±0.0360 | |
| 3 | SupCosine | 0.9830
±0.0250 | |
| 39 | GIN | 0.9330
±0.0290 | |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 621 | All-In-One | 0.7987
±0.0534 best reported | best at pub: ProG: A Graph Prompt Learning Benchmark (NeurIPS 2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 695 | DAGPrompt | 0.7601
±0.0179 | This paper |
| 727 | GCOPE | 0.7398
±0.0264 | This paper |
| 733 | GPF-Plus-LP | 0.7386
±0.0190 | This paper |
| 734 | GraphPrompt | 0.7385
±0.0197 | This paper |
| 736 | HGPrompt | 0.7346
±0.0137 | This paper |
| 758 | GPF-LP | 0.7068
±0.0275 | This paper |
| 789 | Finetune-LP | 0.5887
±0.0165 | This paper |
| 792 | scratch | 0.5643
±0.0285 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GMN | 0.7866 | |
| 2 | MemGNN | 0.7550 | |
| 3 | TFGW SP | 0.7510
±0.0500 | |
| 17 | GatedGCN | 0.7000
±0.0494 | |
| 26 | GraphSAGE | 0.6817
±0.0545 | |
| 124 | MLP | 0.5583
±0.0352 | |
| 248 | DAGPrompt | 0.2671
±0.0422 | This paper |
| 251 | All-In-One | 0.2608
±0.0486 | prev best: ProG: A Graph Prompt Learning Benchmark (NeurIPS 2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 252 | GraphPrompt | 0.2567
±0.0349 | This paper |
| 253 | GPF-Plus-LP | 0.2565
±0.0397 | This paper |
| 254 | GCOPE | 0.2545
±0.0538 | This paper |
| 256 | Finetune-LP | 0.2490
±0.0474 | This paper |
| 268 | HGPrompt | 0.2275
±0.0487 | This paper |
| 271 | scratch | 0.2265
±0.0385 | This paper |
| 292 | GPF-LP | 0.2058
±0.0197 | This paper |
