Towards Text-free Graph Foundation Models: Rethinking Multi-Domain Graph Contrastive Learning

Zihao Zhao, Xinlong Zhai, Jinyu Yang, Chuan Shi

Main figure for Towards Text-free Graph Foundation Models: Rethinking Multi-Domain Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Foundation models have achieved great success in natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision (CV). Their success largely stems from the ability to integrate multi-domain knowledge in pre-training and transfer it to target domains. Considering graph data, especially graphs without textual features, is ubiquitous in real-world applications such as social networks and recommendation systems, some researchers have attempted to extend this paradigm to the graph field, aiming to construct graph foundation models. However, unlike CV and NLP, there are huge gaps among the semantics and properties of graphs in different domains, while current works still adopt traditional contrastive pre-training strategies designed in the single-domain scenario, which regard contrastive samples from different domains as equivalent. From experimental investigations, we discovered that inherent domain-specific differences prevent these strategies from effectively absorbing knowledge from different domains to generate informative representations. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-domain pre-training and cross-domain transfer framework, namely MDGCL.In the pre-training stage, we design a contrastive learning strategy to substantially recognize and capture domain differences, and introduce domain tokens to encode domain-level global information. In the downstream stage, we introduce a domain attention mechanism to enable fine-grained domain knowledge transfer. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets have demonstrated that our method outperforms state-of-the-art significantly, with the maximum improvement of 19.33\

Proposed method: MDGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
504
LLMs
actual #504 vs paper #560 56 places worse
0.8566 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #504 vs paper #560 56 places worse
paper 0.6767 ±0.0400
paper 0.6767 ±0.0400 Δ at pub 0.1799
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
320
MLP
0.8463
488
MDGCL
0.5434 ±0.0700
This paper
489
SimGRACE
0.5004 ±0.0300
This paper
491
SAMGPT
0.4703 ±0.0700
This paper
492
GraphCL
0.4622 ±0.0900
This paper
493
GCOPE
0.4540 ±0.0600
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)