Rethinking Federated Graph Foundation Models: A Graph-Language Alignment-based Approach

Yinlin Zhu, Di Wu, Xianzhi Zhang, Yuming Ai, Xunkai Li, Miao Hu, Guocong Quan

Main figure for Rethinking Federated Graph Foundation Models: A Graph-Language Alignment-based Approach

Abstract

Recent studies of federated graph foundational models (FedGFMs) break the idealized and untenable assumption of having centralized data storage to train graph foundation models, and accommodate the reality of distributed, privacy-restricted data silos. Despite their simplicity and intuition, existing studies that project aligned generalizable knowledge onto a discrete token space via vector-quantized backbones suffer from irreversible knowledge loss during the quantization process. In this context, we argue that reconciling the semantic-structural orthogonality and integrity between pre-trained language models (PLMs) and graph neural networks (GNNs) is paramount for developing effective FedGFMs while simultaneously mitigating the severe data heterogeneity and communication constraints inherent in distributed, resource-limited environments. To address these issues, we propose FedGALA (Federated Graph And Language Alignment), a framework that resolves graph-based semantic-structural orthogonality and integrity in federated settings by employing unsupervised contrastive learning to align GNNs and frozen PLMs within a continuous embedding space, thereby capturing robust, transferable general knowledge. Subsequently, FedGALA leverages a communication-efficient prompt tuning mechanism to steer these pre-aligned encoders and frozen PLMs, facilitating effective adaptation to diverse downstream tasks while circumventing the prohibitive overhead of full-parameter fine-tuning. The comprehensive experiments validate that FedGALA outperforms all competitive baselines across multi-domain datasets on multiple tasks with up to 14.37% performance improvement.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 14 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #771 750 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #771 750 places worse
paper 0.7522 ±0.0019
paper 0.7522 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.1482
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #758 714 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #758 714 places worse
paper 0.7613 ±0.0016
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #778 637 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #778 637 places worse
paper 0.7461 ±0.0020
paper 0.7461 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.1247
165
GIN
actual #165 vs paper #778 613 places worse
0.8660 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #165 vs paper #778 613 places worse
paper 0.7465 ±0.0027
paper 0.7465 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.1195
680
OFA*
actual #680 vs paper #769 89 places worse
0.7941
best reported
actual #680 vs paper #769 89 places worse
paper 0.7537 ±0.0057
paper 0.7537 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0404
724
MLP
0.7768
749
FedTAD
0.7655 ±0.0023
This paper
750
MOON
0.7643 ±0.0026
This paper
751
FedGTA
0.7643 ±0.0026
This paper
755
FED-PUB
0.7633 ±0.0035
This paper
756
FedSage
0.7632 ±0.0016
This paper
761
FedAvg
0.7576 ±0.0019
This paper
778
FGGP
0.7473 ±0.0017
This paper
783
FGSSL
0.7441 ±0.0026
This paper
802
Linear
actual #802 vs paper #802
0.7237 ±0.0033
actual #802 vs paper #802
paper 0.7237 ±0.0033
paper 0.7237 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.1957

Knowledge Graphs

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
FedSage
actual #1 vs paper #8 7 places worse
0.8426 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #8 7 places worse
paper 0.8126 ±0.0026
2
FED-PUB
actual #2 vs paper #9 7 places worse
0.8348 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #9 7 places worse
paper 0.8065 ±0.0030
3
FedAvg
actual #3 vs paper #9 6 places worse
0.8252 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #9 6 places worse
paper 0.8007 ±0.0012
4
GAT
actual #4 vs paper #8 4 places worse
0.8244 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #8 4 places worse
paper 0.8135 ±0.0031
5
MOON
actual #5 vs paper #9 4 places worse
0.8231 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #9 4 places worse
paper 0.8062 ±0.0042
6
Linear
actual #6 vs paper #10 4 places worse
0.8225 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #10 4 places worse
paper 0.7983 ±0.0030
7
GCN
actual #7 vs paper #10 3 places worse
0.8171 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #10 3 places worse
paper 0.7974 ±0.0014
8
GraphSAGE
actual #8 vs paper #9 1 place worse
0.8152 ±0.0024
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #9 1 place worse
paper 0.8033 ±0.0006
9
GIN
actual #9 vs paper #10 1 place worse
0.8124 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #10 1 place worse
paper 0.7994 ±0.0039
10
OFA*
actual #10 vs paper #10
0.8000
actual #10 vs paper #10
paper 0.8000
paper 0.8000 Δ at pub 0.4565
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