Unified Graph Prompt Learning via Low-Rank Graph Message Prompting
Authors: Beibei Wang, Bo Jiang, Ziyan Zhang, Jin Tang
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China. · State Key Laboratory of Opto-Electronic Information Acquisition and Protection Technology, School of Computer Science and Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China.
Graph Data Prompt (GDP), which introduces specific prompts in graph data for efficiently adapting pre-trained GNNs, has become a mainstream approach to graph fine-tuning learning problem. However, existing GDPs have been respectively designed for distinct graph component (e.g., node features, edge features, edge weights) and thus operate within limited prompt spaces for graph data. To the best of our knowledge, it still lacks a unified prompter suitable for targeting all graph components simultaneously. To address this challenge, in this paper, we first propose to reinterpret a wide range of existing GDPs from an aspect of Graph Message Prompt (GMP) paradigm. Based on GMP, we then introduce a novel graph prompt learning approach, termed Low-Rank GMP (LR-GMP), which leverages low-rank prompt representation to achieve an effective and compact graph prompt learning. Unlike traditional GDPs that target distinct graph components separately, LR-GMP concurrently performs prompting on all graph components in a unified manner, thereby achieving significantly superior generalization and robustness on diverse downstream tasks. Extensive experiments on several graph benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of our proposed LR-GMP.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between Graph Data Prompts (GDPs) and our Graph Message Prompt (GMP). (a) Using single GDP method to fine-tune pre-trained GNN model; (b) Using hybrid prompt method that integrates different GDPs to fine-tune pre-trained GNN model; (c) Using unified graph message prompt method to fine-tune pre-trained GNN model.
Figure 2: Comparison of our proposed LR-GMP tuning framework and existing GDPs tuning. By jointly modulating node feature and structural information in the message space, LR-GMP unifies diverse prompting strategies into a single paradigm.
Task Type
Dataset
Graphs
Nodes
Edges
Tasks
Node Classification
Cora
1
2,708
5,429
7
CiteSeer
1
3,327
4,732
6
PubMed
1
19,717
44,338
3
Photo
1
7,650
119,081
8
Computers
1
13,752
245,861
10
Physics
1
34,493
247,962
5
Table I: Statistics of the benchmark datasets used in our experiments.
Method
Cora
CiteSeer
PubMed
Photo
Computers
Physics
SGCL
FT
35.80 ± 7.94
23.65 ± 4.19
49.84 ± 5.98
54.44 ± 8.48
39.58 ± 11.09
75.74 ± 11.65
All in One
40.54 ± 6.03
27.10 ± 6.39
51.63 ± 9.67
48.63 ± 9.25
36.91 ± 10.65
71.05 ± 8.18
GPF
43.68 ± 5.74
23.08 ± 3.35
55.38 ± 11.46
52.61 ± 12.35
39.35 ± 9.44
80.36 ± 4.46
GPF-plus
42.90 ± 8.74
21.81 ± 3.77
55.88 ± 11.94
52.07 ± 11.14
41.91 ± 12.37
80.58 ± 3.92
EdgePrompt
47.04 ± 6.97
28.14 ± 6.60
56.08 ± 6.54
51.50 ± 12.72
46.99 ± 8.50
77.86 ± 6.54
EdgePrompt+
38.90 ± 9.52
25.72 ± 6.23
52.27 ± 8.31
51.64 ± 11.23
46.48 ± 8.09
79.81 ± 4.54
Table II: Comparison results of node classification tasks on six benchmarks. The best result is marked in bold.
Method
BBBP
Tox21
ToxCast
SIDER
ClinTox
MUV
BACE
Average
FT
66.56 ± 3.56
78.67 ± 0.35
66.29 ± 0.45
64.35 ± 0.78
69.07 ± 4.61
79.67 ± 1.70
80.90 ± 0.92
72.72
GPPT
64.13 ± 0.14
66.41 ± 0.04
60.34 ± 0.14
54.86 ± 0.25
59.81 ± 0.46
63.05 ± 0.34
70.85 ± 1.42
61.80
GPPT w/o ol
69.43 ± 0.18
78.91 ± 0.15
64.86 ± 0.11
60.94 ± 0.18
62.15 ± 0.69
82.06 ± 0.53
70.31 ± 0.99
70.97
GraphPrompt
69.29 ± 0.19
68.09 ± 0.19
60.54 ± 0.21
58.71 ± 0.13
55.37 ± 0.57
62.35 ± 0.44
67.70 ± 1.26
61.20
GPF
69.57 ± 0.21
79.74 ± 0.03
65.65 ± 0.30
67.20 ± 0.99
69.49 ± 5.17
82.86 ± 0.23
81.57 ± 1.08
74.51
GPF-plus
69.06 ± 0.68
80.04 ± 0.06
65.94 ± 0.31
67.51 ± 0.59
68.80 ± 2.58
83.13 ± 0.42
81.75 ± 2.09
74.54
Table III: Comparison results of graph classification tasks on seven chemistry benchmarks, based on pre-trained GIN by EdgePred method. The best result is marked in bold.
Figure 3: Comparison results of all methods under different shot settings.
Figure 4: Performance comparison of different methods on noisy graph data, where p denotes the global perturbation rate in Random method or the targeted perturbation number in Nettack method.
APPNP
Cora
CiteSeer
PubMed
Photo
FT
32.88 ± 10.96
27.48 ± 6.31
54.93 ± 7.64
57.43 ± 9.92
All in One
44.85 ± 5.67
30.59 ± 2.57
55.77 ± 7.40
52.62 ± 8.42
GPF
47.16 ± 8.36
30.66 ± 5.05
56.35 ± 6.25
50.74 ± 8.06
GPF-plus
47.21 ± 6.05
30.21 ± 6.50
55.80 ± 6.14
55.02 ± 6.62
EdgePrompt
47.36 ± 6.94
31.54 ± 8.61
60.19 ± 5.32
54.08 ± 8.07
EdgePrompt+
43.96 ± 7.70
28.44 ± 6.98
51.71 ± 7.83
52.83 ± 7.46
Table IV: Node classification results based on pre-trained APPNP and GCNII backbones by Edgepred-Gprompt pre-training method. The best result is marked in bold.
Figure 5: Performance comparison of LR-GMP with different prompt insertion layers including the first, hidden, last layer or across all layers.
Figure 6: Results of LR-GMP with different rank dimensions r .
School of Computer Science and Cyber Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guang Zhou, 510006, Guangdong, China · Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha, 410205, Hunan, China