TL;DR
This paper introduces ADPrompt, a novel framework that improves fairness in pre-trained GNNs by using adaptive prompts to mitigate attribute bias and calibrate message passing, leading to better fair node classification.
Contribution
The paper proposes a dual prompting approach with adaptive modules to enhance fairness in pre-trained GNNs, addressing bias mitigation and dynamic message calibration.
Findings
ADPrompt outperforms baseline methods on node classification tasks.
The adaptive modules effectively reduce attribute bias and improve fairness.
Experimental results across multiple datasets validate the approach's effectiveness.
Abstract
In recent years, pre-training Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) through self-supervised learning on unlabeled graph data has emerged as a widely adopted paradigm in graph learning. Although the paradigm is effective for pre-training powerful GNN models, the objective gap often exists between pre-training and downstream tasks. To bridge this gap, graph prompting adapts pre-trained GNN models to specific downstream tasks with extra learnable prompts while keeping the pre-trained GNN models frozen. As recent graph prompting methods largely focus on enhancing model utility on downstream tasks, they often overlook fairness concerns when designing prompts for adaptation. In fact, pre-trained GNN models will produce discriminative node representations across demographic subgroups, as downstream graph data inherently contains biases in both node attributes and graph structures. To address this…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
Theorem 1 gives a fairness guarantee of ADPrompt, which shows that ADPrompt reduces initial feature bias and suppresses bias propagation, providing a tighter upper bound on Δ_GSP than a standard GNN. The authors also provide empirical result to justify their theoretical findings. This results are very interesting.
Theorem 1 only shows a relationship of less or equal than, but does not really tell how much higher the inequality is.
1. This paper is well-written and easy to understand 2. This paper grounds its proposed method, ADPrompt, in a robust theoretical framework.
1. The paper's primary motivation—using graph prompting for fairness—rests on the assumption that pre-trained GNNs are a valuable and widely adopted resource that should be efficiently adapted. However, this premise is not thoroughly debated. In contrast to large language models or vision transformers, GNNs are often task-specific and can be trained from scratch relatively quickly and efficiently. The claimed benefit of prompting—parameter efficiency by freezing the backbone—is less compelling w
1. The idea is straightforward and easy to follow. 2. The theoretical analysis is provided. 3. The experimental results across four datasets demonstrate the empirical effectiveness of the proposed method.
1. The writing is unclear and can be largely improved. Specifically, (i) in Section 1 (Introduction), the authors fail to claim why we need this proposed method instead of existing fairness graph prompt methods, such as [1]. The challenges mentioned in this section are merely some well-known fairness issues of GNN, making the reasons to design the proposed method unclear; (ii) The contributions mentioned in Section 1 should also be largely rewritten. The first two points are literally the same
+ The modular method is compatible with frozen backbones. AFR and AMC are lightweight prompts on features and messages, easy to add to existing GNNs. + The theoretical results are tied to design. The $\Delta\mathrm{GSP}$ upper bound links AFR to reduced initial bias and AMC to damped propagation amplification. + Experiments are comprehensive. Four datasets $\times$ four pre-training schemes with seven baselines demonstrate the method's effectiveness.
- The work is restricted to binary $y$ and a single binary $s$. How about multi-class or multi-attribute evaluation? - AMC learns an edge-specific prompt $e^{(l-1)}_{ij}$ at each layer, implying $\mathcal{O}(|E|\cdot d \cdot L)$ memory/compute overhead. The paper does not report runtime/memory comparisons with baselines. - The fairness bound relies on Lipschitz assumptions and multiplicative factors $\tilde{\gamma}^{(l)}, \tilde{\epsilon}^{(l)}$, but the paper provides no estimators or empirical
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
