NeurIPS 2025

Towards Effective Federated Graph Foundation Model via Mitigating Knowledge Entanglement

Yinlin Zhu, Xunkai Li, Jishuo Jia, Miao Hu, Di Wu, Meikang Qiu

Main figure for Towards Effective Federated Graph Foundation Model via Mitigating Knowledge Entanglement

Abstract

Recent advances in graph machine learning have shifted to data-centric paradigms, driven by two emerging research fields: (1) Federated graph learning (FGL) facilitates multi-client collaboration but struggles with data and task heterogeneity, resulting in limited practicality; (2) Graph foundation model (GFM) enables desirable domain generalization but is typically confined to single-machine training, neglecting the potential of cross-silo data and computational resources. It is evident that these two paradigms are complementary, and their integration offers substantial advantages. Motivated by this, we present a pioneering study about the erated raph oundation odel (FedGFM), a novel decentralized GFM training paradigm. Despite the promising vision of FedGFM, knowledge entanglement has emerged as a critical challenge, where multi-domain knowledge is encoded into indistinguishable representations, thereby limiting downstream adaptation. To this end, we propose FedGFM+, an effective FedGFM framework with two key modules to mitigate knowledge entanglement in a dual-pronged manner. (1) AncDAI: From a global perspective, we introduce a novel hor-based omain- ware nitialization strategy. Before pre-training, each client encodes its local graph into a domain-specific prototypes, which serve as semantic anchors in the representation space. Around each anchor, we construct synthetic embeddings to initialize the global model. We theoretically show that these prototypes are distinguishable across domains, and the initialization provides a strong inductive bias that facilitates disentanglement of domain-specific knowledge. (2) AdaDPP: From a local perspective, during pre-training, each client independently learns a lightweight graph prompt that captures domain semantic preferences. During fine-tuning, prompts from all clients are aggregated into an ptive omain-sensitive rompt ool, from which the GFM selects relevant prompts to augment the target graph’s attributes, thereby improving the downstream adaptation. FedGFM+ is extensively evaluated on 8 diverse benchmarks spanning multiple domains and tasks, outperforming 20 baselines from isolated supervised learning, FGL, and federated variants of centralized GFM paradigms.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #197 196 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #197 196 places worse
paper 0.7724 ±0.0016
paper 0.7724 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.1578
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #188 157 places worse
0.8533
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #188 157 places worse
paper 0.7759 ±0.0042
paper 0.7759 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0563 Δ today 0.0774
54
GIN
actual #54 vs paper #270 216 places worse
0.8303 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #270 216 places worse
paper 0.6924 ±0.0025
69
GraphSAGE
actual #69 vs paper #187 118 places worse
0.8146 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #187 118 places worse
paper 0.7763 ±0.0021
152
FedSage
0.7864 ±0.0034
This paper
154
FedGTA
0.7860 ±0.0024
This paper
156
OFA
actual #156 vs paper #156
0.7855 ±0.0037
actual #156 vs paper #156
paper 0.7855 ±0.0037

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7855 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0053
166
FED-PUB
0.7832 ±0.0043
This paper
169
FedTAD
0.7822 ±0.0027
This paper
187
FedAvg
0.7767 ±0.0013
This paper
191
MOON
0.7754 ±0.0024
This paper
214
FGSSL
actual #214 vs paper #216 2 places worse
0.7662 ±0.0041
best reported
actual #214 vs paper #216 2 places worse
paper 0.7625 ±0.0024

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7625 ±0.0024 Δ today 0.0037
215
FGGP
0.7644 ±0.0018
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
240
Linear
0.7438 ±0.0016
This paper

Knowledge Graphs

WN18RR

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is MRR. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OFA-llama2-13b
0.9814 ±0.0025
2
OFA-llama2-7b
0.9808 ±0.0016
3
OFA-e5
0.9784 ±0.0035
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #27 9 places worse
0.8677 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #27 9 places worse
paper 0.8227 ±0.0018
paper 0.8227 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0450
19
GAT
actual #19 vs paper #19
0.8552 ±0.0012
actual #19 vs paper #19
paper 0.8552 ±0.0012
paper 0.8552 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.0536
22
Linear
actual #22 vs paper #22
0.8433 ±0.0020
actual #22 vs paper #22
paper 0.8433 ±0.0020
paper 0.8433 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0583
23
FED-PUB
0.8379 ±0.0025
This paper
24
MOON
0.8364 ±0.0045
This paper
25
FedAvg
0.8355 ±0.0020
This paper
26
GraphSAGE
0.8298 ±0.0022
This paper
27
FedSage+
0.8295 ±0.0016
This paper
28
GIN
actual #28 vs paper #28
0.8025 ±0.0028
actual #28 vs paper #28
paper 0.8025 ±0.0028
paper 0.8025 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0623
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published