WWW 2025

DAGPrompT: Pushing the Limits of Graph Prompting with a Distribution-aware Graph Prompt Tuning Approach

Qin Chen, Liang Wang, Bo Zheng, Guojie Song

Main figure for 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\

Proposed method: DAGPrompt

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #621 vs paper #720 99 places worse
0.7987 ±0.0534
best reported
actual #621 vs paper #720 99 places worse
paper 0.7458 ±0.0185
best at pub: ProG: A Graph Prompt Learning Benchmark (NeurIPS 2024)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7458 ±0.0185 Δ at pub 0.0529
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #251 vs paper #251
0.2608 ±0.0486
actual #251 vs paper #251
paper 0.2608 ±0.0486
prev best: ProG: A Graph Prompt Learning Benchmark (NeurIPS 2024)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2608 ±0.0486 Δ at pub 0.0212
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
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)