mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Subgraph-level Universal Prompt Tuning

arXiv 2402.10380 ↗First posted 16 Feb 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In the evolving landscape of machine learning, the adaptation of pre-trained models through prompt tuning has become increasingly prominent. This trend is particularly observable in the graph domain, where diverse pre-training strategies present unique challenges in developing effective prompt-based tuning methods for graph neural networks. Previous approaches have been limited, focusing on specialized prompting functions tailored to models with edge prediction pre-training tasks. These methods, however, suffer from a lack of generalizability across different pre-training strategies. Recently, a simple prompt tuning method has been designed for any pre-training strategy, functioning within the input graph's feature space. This allows it to theoretically emulate any type of prompting function, thereby significantly increasing its versatility for a range of downstream applications. Nevertheless, the capacity of such simple prompts to fully grasp the complex contexts found in graphs remains an open question, necessitating further investigation. Addressing this challenge, our work introduces the Subgraph-level Universal Prompt Tuning (SUPT) approach, focusing on the detailed context within subgraphs. In SUPT, prompt features are assigned at the subgraph-level, preserving the method's universal capability. This requires extremely fewer tuning parameters than fine-tuning-based methods, outperforming them in 42 out of 45 full-shot scenario experiments with an average improvement of over 2.5%. In few-shot scenarios, it excels in 41 out of 45 experiments, achieving an average performance increase of more than 6.6%.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 52 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2024.

Builds on

52 of 69 references.

References · 52

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  4. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  5. 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,282
  6. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,415
  7. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  8. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  9. 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,355
  10. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
  11. 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,769
  12. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
38 more
  1. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,222
  2. 2019Simplifying Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 1,470
  3. 2016Variational Graph Auto-Encoderscited by 1,373
  4. 2020Graph Contrastive Learning with Augmentationscited by 1,203
  5. 2018Deep Graph Infomaxcited by 1,101
  6. 2017MoleculeNet: A Benchmark for Molecular Machine Learningcited by 1,037
  7. 2019Strategies for Pre-training Graph Neural Networkscited by 964
  8. 2018Representation Learning on Graphs with Jumping Knowledge Networkscited by 875
  9. 2018Hierarchical Graph Representation Learning with Differentiable Poolingcited by 786
  10. 2021GPT Understands, Toocited by 715
  11. 2020Pre-trained Models for Natural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 504
  12. 2019Graph U-Netscited by 489
  13. 2020GCC: Graph Contrastive Coding for Graph Neural Network Pre-Trainingcited by 461
  14. 2019InfoGraph: Unsupervised and Semi-supervised Graph-Level Representation Learning via Mutual Information Maximizationcited by 441
  15. 2019Self-Attention Graph Poolingcited by 421
  16. 2020GPT-GNN: Generative Pre-Training of Graph Neural Networkscited by 302
  17. 2020Towards Deeper Graph Neural Networkscited by 296
  18. 2019Revisiting Graph Neural Networks: All We Have is Low-Pass Filterscited by 260
  19. 2021Adversarial Graph Augmentation to Improve Graph Contrastive Learningcited by 200
  20. 2022A Survey of Vision-Language Pre-Trained Modelscited by 177
  21. 2022SimGRACE: A Simple Framework for Graph Contrastive Learning without Data Augmentationcited by 171
  22. 2021Training Graph Neural Networks with 1000 Layerscited by 169
  23. 2023GraphPrompt: Unifying Pre-Training and Downstream Tasks for Graph Neural Networkscited by 166
  24. 2023All in One: Multi-task Prompting for Graph Neural Networkscited by 147
  25. 2021Self-supervised Graph-level Representation Learning with Local and Global Structurecited by 125
  26. 2023Explicit Visual Prompting for Low-Level Structure Segmentationscited by 113
  27. 2022Universal Prompt Tuning for Graph Neural Networkscited by 100
  28. 2023PRODIGY: Enabling In-context Learning Over Graphscited by 97
  29. 2019Graph Convolutional Networks with EigenPoolingcited by 94
  30. 2020Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting in Graph Neural Networkscited by 93
  31. 2023BlackVIP: Black-Box Visual Prompting for Robust Transfer Learningcited by 70
  32. 2020Memory-Based Graph Networkscited by 56
  33. 2020Understanding and Resolving Performance Degradation in Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 53
  34. 2022Dual Modality Prompt Tuning for Vision-Language Pre-Trained Modelcited by 51
  35. 2020Path Integral Based Convolution and Pooling for Graph Neural Networkscited by 35
  36. 2022Visual Prompting for Adversarial Robustnesscited by 33
  37. 2021Adaptive Transfer Learning on Graph Neural Networkscited by 31
  38. 2023AutoVP: An Automated Visual Prompting Framework and Benchmarkcited by 29

50 most cited of 52 All 52 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

9 papers.