Towards Fair Graph Prompting: A Dual-Prompt Mechanism for Mitigating Attribute and Structural Bias

Extracted source text · arXiv 2510.23469

\documentclass{article} 
\usepackage{iclr2026,times}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\iclrfinalcopy
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{placeins}
\usepackage{dblfloatfix}
\usepackage{float} 
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{xurl}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
\input{math_commands.tex}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}


\newcommand{\xf}[1]{\textcolor{teal}{\textbf{Xingbo: #1}}}
\title{Adaptive Dual Prompting: Hierarchical Debiasing for Fairness-aware Graph Neural Networks}
\author{
  Yuhan Yang \\
  University of Virginia \\
  \texttt{yuhan\_yang\_@outlook.com} \\
  \And
  Xingbo Fu \\
  University of Virginia \\
  \texttt{xf3av@virginia.edu} \\
  \And
  Jundong Li \\
  University of Virginia \\
  \texttt{jundong@virginia.edu}
}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{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 issue, we propose an \textbf{A}daptive \textbf{D}ual \textbf{Prompt}ing (ADPrompt) framework that enhances fairness for adapting pre-trained GNN models to downstream tasks.
To mitigate attribute bias, we design an Adaptive Feature Rectification module that learns customized attribute prompts to suppress sensitive information at the input layer, reducing bias at the source.
Afterward, we propose an Adaptive Message Calibration module that generates structure prompts at each layer, which adjust the message from neighboring nodes to enable dynamic and soft calibration of the information flow.
Finally, ADPrompt jointly optimizes the two prompting modules to adapt the pre-trained GNN while enhancing fairness.
We conduct extensive experiments on four datasets with four pre-training strategies to evaluate the performance of ADPrompt.
The results demonstrate that our proposed ADPrompt outperforms seven baseline methods on node classification tasks.

\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}

Graphs are ubiquitous in various real-world scenarios across diverse domains, including bioinformatics~\citep{chatzianastasis2023explainable}, healthcare systems~\citep{jiang2024graphcare}, and fraud detection~\citep{huang2022auc}. 
Within the landscape of graph learning, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)~\citep{kipf2017gcn, hamilton2017graphsage, velivckovic2018gat, xu2019gin, chen2020simple, rossi2020tgn} are a preeminent paradigm, widely recognized for their remarkable capability to learn graph representations.
In particular, GNN models leverage a message-passing mechanism~\citep{kipf2017gcn}, wherein each node recursively aggregates information from its neighbors to obtain its node embedding.
Traditionally, GNN models are optimized in an end-to-end manner for designated downstream tasks.
However, this training paradigm critically depends on the availability of substantial labeled graph data, which is often limited in practical scenarios.
Moreover, task-specific training often produces GNNs with limited generalization, restricting their applicability to other tasks.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \begin{minipage}[t]{0.482\linewidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[height=4cm, width=\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{attribute_bias.pdf}
    \end{minipage}
    \hfill
    \begin{minipage}[t]{0.502\linewidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[height=4cm, width=\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{structure_bias.pdf}
    \end{minipage}
    \caption{(a) Attribute bias: In the German credit dataset, the distribution of labels varies across node attributes under different gender groups. (b) Structural bias: Across the three datasets, the distribution of sensitive attributes among node neighbors varies significantly across different sensitive groups, as defined in Table~\ref{table:dataset}, indicating structural disparity.}
    \label{fig:bias_statistic}
\end{figure}


To address the above issues, extensive research efforts have been devoted to developing effective graph pre-training strategies that leverage self-supervised learning to pre-train GNN models on unlabeled graph data~\citep{velivckovic2019dgi,hu2020strategies, you2020graph}.
When transferring pre-trained GNN models to specific downstream tasks, a primary challenge lies in the gap between the objectives of the pre-training and downstream tasks, e.g., link prediction during pre-training versus node classification in downstream tasks~\citep{sun2022gppt}.
Inspired by recent advances in prompting within computer vision and natural language processing~\citep{jia2022vpt, zhou2022coop, khattak2023maple, yoo2023improving}, graph prompting seeks to bridge this gap by adapting pre-trained GNN models for downstream tasks using additional tunable graph prompts~\citep{sun2023survey}.
In contrast to fine-tuning approaches that update the parameters of pre-trained GNN models for downstream tasks~\citep{zhili2024search, sun2024fine, huang2024measuring}, graph prompting modifies the input graph or its representations via learned prompts, while keeping the pre-trained model parameters fixed.

Although graph prompting effectively facilitates the adaptation of pre-trained GNN models to downstream tasks~\citep{sun2022gppt, liu2023graphprompt, fang2023universal, yu2024generalized, duan2024g, gong2024self, yu2024hgprompt, li2025fairness}, existing graph prompting studies primarily focus on enhancing model utility (e.g., node classification accuracy), with limited attention to fairness concerns.
These methods often overlook the potential for biased performance across demographic subgroups, such as gender and race.
Beyond the inherent biases in pre-trained GNN models caused by the pre-training graph data and strategies, simply learning graph prompts on the biased graph data during adaptation can further exacerbate unfairness on downstream tasks.
Unfortunately, such critical fairness concerns in graph prompting have not been fully explored yet, with only one recent study~\citep{li2025fairness} having undertaken a preliminary investigation into this crucial problem.

Debiasing pre-trained GNN models via graph prompting during adaptation is non-trivial due to two key challenges.
The first challenge arises from \emph{attribute bias}. 
For example, we can observe from \cref{fig:bias_statistic}(a) that the distributions of three attributes (i.e., house status, guarantor, and residency duration) are inconsistent across different gender groups in the German credit dataset~\citep{Dua:2017}. 
In real-world scenarios, recruitment platforms may exhibit attribute bias, where user features like gender or age affect recommendations, limiting opportunities for some groups.
In the graph data used for downstream tasks, sensitive information (e.g., gender or race information) is often carried by node attributes, both explicitly and implicitly.
Intuitively, graph prompting can modify the graph data by directly masking these sensitive attributes to suppress their explicit influence on pre-trained GNN models.
However, the remaining attributes can still encode sensitive information implicitly, thereby undermining efforts to promote fairness.
The second challenge lies in \emph{structure bias}, where graph connectivity patterns differ across demographic subgroups~\citep{dai2021fairgnn,dong2022edits}. For instance, in the Pokec\_n and Pokec\_z datasets (\cref{fig:bias_statistic}(b)), neighbors’ sensitive attributes vary markedly, with most nodes connected predominantly to same-group neighbors.
Such patterns create ``echo chambers'' that limit exposure to diverse information.
Through message passing, GNNs can further amplify these disparities: nodes with few neighbors receive limited information, and nodes surrounded by same-group neighbors receive homogeneous signals.
These effects restrict information flow and reinforce biased representations, worsening unfairness in downstream tasks.
As a result, these two challenges pose significant obstacles to achieving fair adaptation on downstream tasks.
% To illustrate the underlying challenge, Figure~\ref{fig:bias_statistic} summarizes the distribution of sensitive labels across attribute groups and neighborhood structures, revealing clear attribute-level and structural biases in real-world graph datasets.

To overcome these challenges, we propose \textbf{A}daptive \textbf{D}ual \textbf{Prompt}ing (ADPrompt), a fairness-aware prompting framework, with soft and dynamic interventions.
After pre-training a GNN, ADPrompt mitigates bias throughout message propagation in three complementary ways:
(1) Adaptive Feature Rectification (AFR) purifies node attributes at the source by identifying and suppressing sensitive feature dimensions;
(2) Adaptive Message Calibration (AMC) dynamically adjusts messages between nodes across layers via edge-specific structure prompts;
and (3) adversarial training encourages representations invariant to sensitive information.
We present theoretical analyses highlighting that our lightweight prompting framework can both mitigate bias and enhance model adaptation on downstream tasks.
Extensive experiments on four datasets and four pre-training strategies show that our method consistently outperforms seven baselines.
Our contributions are summarized as follows:

\begin{itemize}
  \item We propose a hierarchical fairness prompting framework spanning the entire information flow in GNNs, integrating source-level attribute purification with propagation-level message calibration. This dual-level design enables dynamic, soft adjustments that minimize disruption to the original graph structure, effectively mitigating bias while enhancing downstream performance.
  \item We provide detailed methodological descriptions and theoretical analyses of ADPrompt, clarifying how it mitigates bias in GNNs while improving adaptability to downstream tasks.
  \item We conduct extensive experiments on multiple datasets under four distinct GNN pre-training paradigms, and our results consistently show that our method outperforms seven representative baselines in both performance and fairness.
\end{itemize}




\section{Related Works}


\subsection{Graph Prompting}
Graph prompting has emerged as a paradigm to bridge pre-training and downstream tasks in GNNs, enabling efficient adaptation with minimal parameter updates~\citep{liu2023survey, sun2023survey,dong2023fairness}. 
For instance, GPF and GPF-plus~\citep{fang2023universal} propose a universal input-space framework that adapts diverse pre-trained GNNs without task-specific prompts. 
All in One~\citep{sun2023all} presents a unified framework with learnable tokens and adaptive structures for flexible graph-level reformulation. 
GraphPrompt~\citep{liu2023graphprompt} employs task-specific prompts to reweight node features during subgraph ReadOut, improving task-aware retrieval from frozen GNNs.
TGPT~\citep{wang2024novel} tailors prompts to graph topologies by leveraging graphlets and frequency embeddings for dynamic feature transformation.
While graph prompting methods have shown promising progress in enhancing model performance and task adaptability, they generally fail to address the widespread bias inherent
in real-world graph data~\citep{dong2023fairness}.



\subsection{Group Fairness in Graph Learning}
As GNNs are increasingly applied across diverse domains, enhancing group fairness has become a critical focus in graph learning~\citep{dai2021fairgnn,chen2024fairness}. 
The survey~\citep{dong2023fairness} reviews fairness in graph mining, proposes a taxonomy of fairness
notions, and summarizes existing fairness techniques.
FairDrop~\citep{spinelli2021fairdrop} proposes a biased edge dropout algorithm to counteract homophily and enhance fairness in graph representation learning. 
Graph counterfactual fairness~\citep{ma2022learning} addresses biases induced by the sensitive attributes of neighboring nodes and their causal effects on node features and the graph structure.
FPrompt~\citep{li2025fairness} enhances fairness in pre-trained GNNs with hybrid prompts that generate counterfactual data and guide structure-aware aggregation. 





\section{Preliminaries}

\subsection{Graph Neural Networks}
Let $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ denote an attributed graph with node set $\mathcal{V} = \{v_1, \dots, v_N\}$ and edge set $\mathcal{E}$. 
Each node $v_i$ has an attribute vector $\mathbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{D_x}$, and $\mathcal{N}(v_i)$ denotes its neighbors. 
GNNs learn node representations via message passing~\citep{kipf2017gcn, hamilton2017graphsage, velivckovic2018gat}, where each node iteratively aggregates information from its neighbors:
\begin{equation} \label{equation:gnn}
    \mathbf{h}^{(l)}_i = \mathtt{AGG}^{(l)} \!\left(\mathbf{h}_i^{(l-1)}, \{\mathbf{h}_j^{(l-1)}: v_j \in \mathcal{N}(v_i)\} \right),
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{h}^{(l)}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{D_l}$ the representation at layer $l$, initialized by $\mathbf{h}^{(0)}_i = \mathbf{x}_i$. 
The final embedding $\mathbf{h}^{(L)}_i$ is fed into a predictor $\pi$ for downstream tasks such as node classification.


\subsection{Fairness Metrics}
In this study, we focus on group fairness~\citep{dai2021fairgnn,dong2022edits}, which requires models to produce non-discriminatory predictions across groups defined by sensitive attributes. Following prior work, we assess fairness using statistical parity (SP) and equal opportunity (EO), based on the binary label $y \in {0,1}$, sensitive attribute $s \in {0,1}$, and predicted label $\hat{y} \in {0,1}$. Specifically, the SP metric $\Delta\mathrm{SP}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta\mathrm{SP} =
\left| P \left( \hat{y}=1 \mid s=1 \right)
- P \left( \hat{y}=1 \mid s=0 \right) \right|
\end{equation}
and the equal opportunity (EO) metric $\Delta\mathrm{EO}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta\mathrm{EO} =
\left| P(\hat{y}=1 \mid y=1, s=1) - P(\hat{y}=1 \mid y=1, s=0) \right|
\end{equation}

For both metrics, a lower value implies better fairness.

\subsection{Problem Definition}
Based on the above notations, we formulate the problem of fair graph prompting as follows.

\smallskip
\noindent \textbf{Problem 1.} 
\textit{
Given a graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ and a GNN model $\theta^*$ pre-trained by a pre-training task $\mathcal{T}_{PT}$, fair graph prompting designs and learns extra tunable prompt vectors to adapt the pre-trained GNN model on a downstream task $\mathcal{T}_{DT}$ without tuning $\theta^*$.
The goal of fair graph prompting is to improve model utility while enhancing model fairness.
}

\section{Methodology}

Existing fairness methods for GNNs often suffer from limited adaptability: some rely on static augmentation (e.g., injecting fixed counterfactual prototypes), which ignores node-specific characteristics~\citep{ma2022learning,wo2025improving}, while others adopt hard interventions (e.g., modifying the graph structure), which may disrupt critical topological information~\citep{li2025fairness}.

To address these limitations, we propose Adaptive Dual Prompting (ADPrompt), a soft and dynamic intervention strategy that applies fine-grained adjustments to input node features and information flow while preserving the original graph structure. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}, ADPrompt intervenes across the entire information flow in GNNs: it first purifies node attributes at the input layer via adaptive feature rectification, then calibrates message passing dynamically at each layer, and incorporates adversarial learning during optimization to enforce invariance to sensitive information. Details of each component are provided in the following subsections.

\begin{figure*}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model.pdf}
    \caption{The framework of ADPrompt.}
    \label{fig:framework}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Adaptive Feature Rectification}
Attribute bias arises from sensitive information (e.g., gender or race) that is explicitly encoded in certain dimensions of node attributes and implicitly entangled with other dimensions.
As a result, even if the explicit sensitive attributes are removed, biased outputs may still be produced by the pre-trained GNN.
To counteract attribute bias during graph prompting, we introduce an Adaptive Feature Rectification (AFR) module in ADPrompt.
In this module, We purify information at the source level, reducing biased inputs from the outset.
The intuition of AFR is to generate a personalized attribute prompt for each node that selectively attenuates sensitive feature dimensions via self-gating.

More specifically, each node $v_i \in \mathcal{V}$ will learn a customized attribute prompt $\mathbf{m}_i \in [0, 1]^{D_x}$, which is then applied to its attribute vector $\mathbf{x}_i$ to obtain the prompted attribute vector $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i$ by
\begin{equation} \label{equation:4 prompted_attribute}
\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i = \mathbf{m}_i \odot \mathbf{x}_i,
\end{equation}
where $\odot$ represents the element-wise product between $\mathbf{m}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_i$.
However, learning $|\mathcal{V}|$ independent attribute prompts is impractical in graph prompting.
During adaptation, only a small subset of nodes is typically labeled, so most nodes cannot receive supervision information for optimizing their attribute prompts.
As a result, node $v_i$'s attribute prompt $\mathbf{m}_i$ cannot be reliably optimized if it never contributes to the representations of any labeled ones.
To overcome this issue, we propose a self-gating mechanism~\citep{hu2018senet} for Adaptive Feature Rectification.
The intuition of the self-gating mechanism is to obtain attribute prompts for every nodes by learning a shared attribute projector $\psi$ followed by a sigmoid function.
Here, the attribute projector $\psi$ is a compact network conditioned on the attribute vector of one node.
More specifically, we compute the attribute prompt $\mathbf{m}_i$ for each node $v_i$ by
\begin{equation} \label{equation:5 attribute_prompt}
\mathbf{m}_i = \sigma(\psi(\mathbf{x}_i)) = \sigma ( \mathtt{ReLU}(\mathbf{x}_i \mathbf{U}_1) \mathbf{U}_2),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is the sigmoid function. 
$\mathbf{U}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{D_x \times D_u}$ and $\mathbf{U}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{D_u \times D_x}$ are two learnable matrices in $\psi$.
$D_u$ is one dimension size of $\mathbf{U}_1$ and $\mathbf{U}_2$.
Then the prompted attribute $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i$ is subsequently used for the pre-trained GNN model.
In Adaptive Feature Rectification, attribute prompts serve as input-layer gates that filter biased information from node features and mitigate bias at the source.


\subsection{Adaptive Message Calibration}
Although node features are purified at the outset, bias can still be amplified within GNNs due to structural disparities.
Such disparities across demographic subgroups propagate through message passing, resulting in biased node representations.
To address this, we introduce Adaptive Message Calibration (AMC) in ADPrompt.
Our approach performs soft, fine-grained corrections at the information flow level without altering the graph structure. Unlike hard interventions such as edge editing~\citep{loveland2022fairedit,franco2024fair,li2025fairness}, which risk disrupting critical topology, AMC lets each node adaptively regulate how it absorbs neighbor information through learnable structure prompts.

More specifically, each node $v_i \in \mathcal{V}$ aims to learn a customized structure prompt $\mathbf{e}^{(l-1)}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{D_{l-1}}$ that will be transmitted from $v_i$'s neighbor $v_j \in \mathcal{N}(v_i)$ along with edge $(v_i, v_j)$ at the $l$-th layer of the pre-trained GNN model.
Mathematically, ADPrompt updates the prompted representation of node $v_i$ at the $l$-th layer by reformulating~\eqref{equation:gnn} with structure prompts as
\begin{equation} \label{equation:6 prompted_representation}
    \tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1)}_i = \mathtt{AGG}^{(l)} \left(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_i^{(l-1)}, \left\{\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_j^{(l-1)} + \mathbf{e}_{ij}^{(l-1)}: v_j \in \mathcal{N}(v_i) \right\} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(0)}_i=\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i$.
Since $\mathbf{e}^{(l-1)}_{ij}$ depicts how the information transmitted from $v_j$ to $v_i$ at the $l$-th layer, we may naturally relate structure prompt $\mathbf{e}^{(l-1)}_{ij}$ to both $v_j$ and $v_i$.
Considering this, we design a structure projector $\varphi$ to compute $\mathbf{e}^{(l-1)}_{ij}$ based on $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1)}_i$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1)}_j$.
Mathematically, the structure projector $\varphi$ computes $\mathbf{e}^{(l-1)}_{ij}$ by
\begin{equation}  \label{equation:7 structure_prompt}
% \small
\begin{aligned} 
    \mathbf{e}_{ij}^{(l-1)} &= \varphi \left( \tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1))}_i, \tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1))}_j \right) \\
    &= \mathtt{LeakyReLU} \left( \left[ \tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1)}_i \Big|\Big| \tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(l-1)}_j \right] \mathbf{W}^{(l)}_1 \right) \mathbf{W}^{(l)}_2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $[\cdot|| \cdot]$ represents the vector concatenation. $\mathbf{W}^{(l)}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{2D_{l-1} \times D_w}$ and $\mathbf{W}^{(l)}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{D_w \times D_{l-1}}$ are learnable parameters in $\varphi$. 
$D_w$ is one dimension size of $\mathbf{W}^{(l)}_1$ and $\mathbf{W}^{(l)}_2$.
Through Adaptive Message Calibration, ADPrompt dynamically adjusts the information flow during message passing, enabling layer-wise and fine-grained modifications based on current node embeddings.



\subsection{Prompt Optimization}
Through our Adaptive Feature Rectification and Adaptive Message Calibration, ADPrompt produces the final prompted representation $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(L)}_i$ of node $v_i$. 
Ideally, $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(L)}_i$ should be unbiased across demographic subgroups to ensure fair prediction for node classification.
To achieve this, we design a joint optimization objective consisting of a supervised loss and an adversarial loss to collaboratively optimize attribute prompts and structure prompts.

\subsubsection{Supervised Loss.}
During adaptation, the primary goal of ADPrompt is to enhance model utility on downstream tasks.
In ADPrompt, the predictor $\pi$ uses $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(L)}_i$ to generate node $v_i$'s prediction $\hat{y}_i=\pi(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(L)}_i)$.
Given the labeled node set $\mathcal{V}_L \subset \mathcal{V}$, $\hat{y}_i$ is then used to predict the binary label $y_i$ of node $v_i$ by minimizing a supervised loss between $\hat{y}_i$ and $y_i$ for each labeled node $v_i \in \mathcal{V}_L$.
Mathematically, we can formulate the supervised loss as the cross-entropy loss by
\begin{equation} \label{equation:supervised} 
     \mathcal{L}_{Sup}(\psi, \varphi, \pi) =  - \frac{1}{|\mathcal{V}_L|} \sum_{v_i \in \mathcal{V}_L} [y_i \log \hat{y}_i + (1-y_i) \log (1- \hat{y}_i)].
\end{equation}




\subsubsection{Adversarial Loss.}
In the meantime, ADPrompt enhances fairness by encouraging prompted representations to be independent of sensitive attributes.
To this end, we introduce a linear adversary $\omega$ that predicts each node’s binary sensitive attribute from $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(L)}_i$.
By minimizing the adversary’s predictive power, ADPrompt reduces sensitive information in the representations and guides the model toward fairer downstream predictions.
More specifically, the adversary $\omega$ generates the predicted sensitive attribute $\hat{s}_i=\omega(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}^{(L)}_i)$ for each node $v_i \in \mathcal{V}$.
Given node $v_i$'s binary sensitive attribute $y_i$, we can formulate the adversarial loss as the cross-entropy loss by
\begin{equation} \label{equation:adversary}
    \mathcal{L}_{Adv}(\psi, \varphi, \omega) = - \frac{1}{|\mathcal{V}|} \sum_{v_i \in \mathcal{V}} [s_i \log \hat{s}_i + (1-s_i) \log (1- \hat{s}_i)].
\end{equation}



\subsubsection{Joint Optimization Objective.}
By combining the above loss terms, we finally provide the joint optimization objective in ADPrompt as a minmax problem. 
Mathematically, the final optimization objective can be written as
\begin{equation}  \label{equation:objective}
    \min_{\psi, \varphi, \pi} \max_{\omega} \mathcal{L}_{Sup}(\psi, \varphi, \pi) - \lambda \mathcal{L}_{Adv}(\psi, \varphi, \omega),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a hyperparameter to balance the two loss terms.
The complete algorithm of prompt optimization is provided in~\ref{alg:ADPrompt}.

 \section{Theoretical Analysis} 
 
In this section, we present a theoretical analysis to elucidate how the ADPrompt framework systematically mitigates group bias. Our analysis focuses on decomposing the upper bound of the Generalized Statistical Parity ($\Delta_{GSP}$) and showing how our dual prompting mechanism tightens this bound by alleviating its key contributing terms~\citep{dai2021fairgnn,li2025fairness}. We further analyze model adaptability in Appendix~\ref{sec:adaptability} and provide an Information-Theoretic perspective in Appendix~\ref{sec:info_theory_analysis}.

 \subsection{Preliminaries and Analytical Framework} 

 \paragraph{Fairness Criterion.}
 We adopt the Generalized Statistical Parity ($\Delta_{GSP}$) as our core fairness metric~\citep{zafar2017fairness}. 
For models with continuous outputs, $\Delta_{GSP}$ is defined as the norm of the difference between the expected predictions across sensitive groups:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{GSP}(\hat{y}) = \big\| \mathbb{E}[\hat{y}_i \mid s_i=0] - \mathbb{E}[\hat{y}_i \mid s_i=1] \big\|,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{y}_i$ is the prediction of node $v_i$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the $\ell_2$ norm. 
A smaller $\Delta_{GSP}$ indicates greater model fairness.

\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:Lipschitz}
The activation functions of the GNN backbone $\theta$ and the classifier $\pi$ are \textbf{Lipschitz continuous}, with constants $L_f, L_\pi > 0$~\citep{rockafellar1998variational,bartlett2017spectrally}.
\end{assumption}
 
\paragraph{Analytical Framework.} We aim to minimize the expected prediction disparity $\Delta_{GSP}(\hat{y})$ across demographic groups defined by a sensitive attribute $s \in \{0,1\}$. Under  assumption~\ref{ass:Lipschitz}, this disparity admits an upper bound, which is jointly determined by two main sources:
(1) Initial Feature Bias, when node attributes explicitly carry or implicitly embed sensitive information;
 (2) Bias Amplification during Propagation, where the message-passing mechanism of GNNs can exacerbate the initial bias layer by layer. Our ADPrompt framework tightens this upper bound by synergistically addressing the two critical sources of bias. 

 \subsection{Fairness Bound Analysis of ADPrompt} 
 
 \paragraph{Reduction of Initial Bias via Adaptive Feature (AFR).}
AFR mitigates input-level bias by learning a node-adaptive prompt $m_i$ to generate rectified feature $\tilde{x}i = m_i \odot x_i$. The projector $\psi$ is trained with an adversarial loss to minimize the mutual information $I(\tilde{X}; s)$ between rectified features and the sensitive attribute. This enforces alignment of feature distributions across demographic groups, leading to a tighter bound on group bias:
\begin{equation}
\Delta{GSP}(\tilde{X}) \le \Delta_{GSP}(X).
\end{equation}
Consequently, AFR establishes fairer initial representations, facilitating less biased information propagation in subsequent GNN layers.
 
\paragraph{Suppression of Bias Amplification via Adaptive Message Calibration (AMC).} 
Although feature purification reduces initial bias, message passing may still amplify disparities. Let $\Delta^{(l)}$ denote the group disparity at the $l$-th layer:
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{(l)} = \big| \mathbb{E}[h_i^{(l)} \mid s_i=0] - \mathbb{E}[h_i^{(l)} \mid s_i=1] \big|.
\end{equation}
The recursive aggregation satisfies
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{(l)} \le \gamma^{(l)} \Delta^{(l-1)} + \epsilon^{(l)},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma^{(l)} > 1$ reflects amplification from non-linear aggregation and $\epsilon^{(l)}$ captures structural disparity. Over $L$ layers, this effect compounds exponentially:
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{(L)} \lesssim \Big(\prod_{l=1}^{L}\gamma^{(l)}\Big)\Delta^{(0)}.
\end{equation}
To counter this, AMC injects adaptive calibration vectors $e_{ij}^{(l-1)}$ into messages via~\eqref{equation:7 structure_prompt}, optimized adversarially to offset sensitive components. This reduces both the amplification factor and the residual term:
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{(l)} \le \tilde{\gamma}^{(l)} \Delta^{(l-1)} + \tilde{\epsilon}^{(l)}.
\end{equation}
Together with AFR on inputs, AMC transforms the growth into a controlled sub-multiplicative process, ensuring that the final disparity $\Delta^{(L)}$ remains bounded. Theorem~\ref{thm:fairness} formalizes this upper bound:

\begin{theorem}[Fairness Guarantee of ADPrompt]
\label{thm:fairness}
Under Assumption~\ref{ass:Lipschitz}, for an $L$-layer GNN, let $\Delta^{(l)}$ denote the group disparity at layer $l$ and $\Delta_{GSP}(\tilde{X})$ the initial feature bias after AFR. 
Then the final disparity satisfies
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{GSP}(\tilde{h}^{(L)}) 
\le 
\left( \prod_{l=1}^{L} \tilde{\gamma}^{(l)} \right) \Delta_{GSP}(\tilde{X}) 
+ \sum_{l=1}^{L} \left( \prod_{k=l+1}^{L} \tilde{\gamma}^{(k)} \right) \tilde{\epsilon}^{(l)},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\gamma}^{(l)} \le \gamma^{(l)}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}^{(l)} \le \epsilon^{(l)}$ denote the AMC-calibrated layer-wise amplification and residual terms respectively. 
This formally shows that ADPrompt reduces initial feature bias and suppresses bias propagation, providing a tighter upper bound on $\Delta_{GSP}$ than a standard GNN.
\end{theorem}


\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Experiment Settings}
\label{sec:Experiment Settings}
\paragraph{Datasets.}

We employ four real-world graph datasets from various domains to evaluate our framework: (1) Credit defaulter~\citep{yeh2009comparisons}, a financial graph where nodes represent customers and edges indicate similar credit behavior; (2) German credit~\citep{Dua:2017}, a credit dataset where individuals are nodes and edges are based on feature similarities; (3) Pokec\_z and (4) Pokec\_n~\citep{dai2021fairgnn}, social network subgraphs from the Pokec platform where nodes are users and edges represent friendships. More detailed information about datasets are in Appendix~\ref{sec:Dataset}.


\paragraph{Pre-training Strategies.}
To evaluate the compatibility of our method, we adopt four pre-training strategies. 
For contrastive learning, we use InfoMax~\citep{velivckovic2019dgi}, GraphCL~\citep{you2020graph}, and BGRL~\citep{thakoor2021bootstrapped}. 
For generative learning, we use GAE~\citep{kipf2016variational}, which reconstructs graph structure from encoded node features. 
Further details are provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:Pre-training}.


\begin{table*}[t]
    \centering
    \caption{50-shot performance comparison of graph prompting methods under four pre-training strategies over four datasets (all values in \%). The best-performing method is \textbf{bolded} and the runner-up \underline{underlined}.}
    \label{table_main}
    \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
    \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt} 
    \Huge
    \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
        \input{table_main}
    \end{adjustbox}
\end{table*}

\paragraph{Baselines.}
We compare our method with five state-of-the-art graph prompting approaches: GraphPrompt~\citep{yu2024generalized}, GPF and its variant GPF-plus~\citep{fang2023universal}, Self-pro~\citep{gong2024self}, and FPrompt~\citep{li2025fairness}.
Additionally, we report the performance of a classifier trained without prompts (named as Classifier Only), as well as a variant enhanced with adversarial learning (named as Adversarial Learning). All baselines are evaluated on node classification, which serves as our downstream task.
More information on these baselines can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:baselines}.

\paragraph{Implementation Details.}
In our experiments, we adopt a 2-layer GCN~\citep{kipf2017gcn} as the backbone for node classification tasks. During pre-training, the datasets are randomly split into training, validation, and test sets with a ratio of 60\%, 20\%, and 20\%, respectively. The hidden layer size is set to 128. We employ the Adam optimizer~\citep{kipf2017gcn} with a learning rate of 0.001 for all methods. We train graph prompting for 300 epochs. The main experiments adopt a 50-shot setting, while results for the 10-shot setting are reported in Appendix~\ref{sec:10-shot}. All experiments are repeated three times with different random seeds, and the average performance is reported.




\subsection{Main Results}
We compare ADPrompt with seven baseline methods on 50-shot node classification tasks across four datasets under four pre-training strategies (Table~\ref{table_main}). 
Our method consistently achieves the best or highly competitive performance across various pre-training strategies. 
While many baselines attain strong accuracy, they show notable fairness deficiencies, indicating unequal treatment of demographic groups. 
In contrast, ADPrompt reduces bias while maintaining high task performance: for example, on the German dataset, it improves accuracy by ~3\% and simultaneously lowers both $\Delta$EO and $\Delta$SP by ~2\%.




\subsection{Analysis of ADPrompt}

\paragraph{Analysis of Adaptive Feature Rectification.}
To evaluate the AFR module, we analyzed the prompt coefficients of each feature dimension. Lower coefficients indicate stronger suppression of the corresponding feature dimension. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:node mask}, sensitive attributes (e.g., gender, age) consistently receive lower values than non-sensitive ones, confirming that attribute prompts effectively suppress sensitive information and mitigate feature-level bias.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{mask.pdf}
    \caption{Comparison of prompt coefficients across sensitive and non-sensitive feature dimensions.}
    \label{fig:node mask}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Impact of the Balancing Parameter.}
To assess the trade-off between accuracy and fairness, we analyzed the impact of the balancing hyperparameter $\lambda$ in prompt optimization under the GraphCL pre-training strategy on four datasets. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hyperparameter}, larger $\lambda$ increases the adversarial fairness loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Adv}}$, reducing fairness gaps but potentially harming accuracy. A moderate $\lambda$ (5–7) achieves the best balance across most datasets.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{balance_perpa.pdf}
    \caption{Effect of the hyperparameter $\lambda$ on accuracy and fairness under GraphCL pre-training.}
    \label{fig:hyperparameter}
\end{figure*}


\paragraph{More experimental results.}
Due to the page limit, additional experimental results, including a 10-shot performance comparison of baseline methods, an ablation study, the performance of ADPrompt with different GNN backbones, and more, are provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:More Experimental Results}.



\section{Conclusion}
This study introduced ADPrompt, a fairness-aware graph prompting method that integrates Adaptive Feature Rectification and Adaptive Message Calibration to mitigate biases in both node attributes and graph structure. 
It reduces group prejudice in GNNs and improves adaptability for downstream tasks with a spot of learnable prompts. 
Extensive experiments on multiple datasets show that ADPrompt consistently outperforms seven baselines under various pre-training strategies. 
Future work will explore scalability to large graphs and generalization across diverse graph types, as well as more advanced prompting strategies for broader applications.


% \input{main_algorithm.tex}


\bibliographystyle{iclr2026}
\bibliography{iclr2026} 

\clearpage
\appendix
\section{Theoretical Analysis of Model Adaptability}
\label{sec:adaptability}


In this section, we present a theoretical analysis of the adaptability of the ADPrompt framework. We demonstrate that ADPrompt can effectively adapt a fixed pre-trained GNN $\theta^*$ to diverse downstream tasks through the learned adaptive dual prompts. The key to this adaptability lies in the universality of the prompts, which can replicate any ideal modification of the graph structure and node attributes, thereby enabling near-optimal performance on the target task~\citep{xu2018powerful}.


To formalize the adaptability of ADPrompt, let $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ denote the original graph with node attributes $\mathbf{X} = [\mathbf{x}_1, \dots, \mathbf{x}_N]^\top$. 
Let $\mathcal{G}' = (\mathcal{V}', \mathcal{E}')$ represent an arbitrary target graph from the candidate space, equipped with node attributes $\mathbf{X}' = [\mathbf{x}'_1, \dots, \mathbf{x}'_N]^\top$. 
An ideal adaptation method would enable the pre-trained GNN $\theta^*$ to generate task-optimal node representations on $\mathcal{G}'$.

Based on this, we present the following theorem~\ref{theorem:adaptability} to establish the universal adaptation capability of ADPrompt. 
\begin{theorem}[Adaptability of ADPrompt] 
\label{theorem:adaptability}
Given a pre-trained $L$-layer GNN model $\theta^*$ and an input graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ with node attributes $\mathbf{X}$, for any target graph $\mathcal{G}' = (\mathcal{V}', \mathcal{E}')$ with node attributes $\mathbf{X}'$, there exist learnable prompting modules $\psi$ (AFR) and $\varphi$ (AMC) such that the final node representations $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_i^{(L)}$ produced by ADPrompt on $\mathcal{G}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_i^{(L)}[\psi, \varphi] = \mathbf{h}_i'^{(L)}, \quad \forall v_i \in \mathcal{V},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{h}_i'^{(L)}$ denotes the representation of node $v_i$ obtained by applying $\theta^*$ to the target graph $\mathcal{G}'$.
\end{theorem}



The validity of Theorem~\ref{theorem:adaptability} stems from the powerful expressiveness of the ADPrompt framework, which manifests in two key aspects: 

\textbf{Proof 1. Simulating Arbitrary Feature Transformations via AFR.} The AFR module generates a personalized, dimension-wise attribute prompt $\mathbf{m}_i$ for each node $v_i$ and applies it via element-wise multiplication: $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i = \mathbf{m}_i \odot \mathbf{x}_i$. This fine-grained gating mechanism is significantly more expressive than simple additive prompts or global transformations. By optimizing the module $\psi$, the prompt $\mathbf{m}_i$ can be trained to arbitrarily scale, suppress, or even nullify each dimension of the original feature vector $\mathbf{x}_i$. This flexibility allows AFR to approximate any target feature matrix $\mathbf{X}'$ with high fidelity~\citep{srivastava2015highway,li2021prefix,ding2023parameter}. 

\textbf{Proof 2. Simulating Arbitrary Structural Transformations via AMC.} Modifications to the graph structure (i.e., from $\mathcal{E}$ to $\mathcal{E}'$) fundamentally alter the message-passing pathways within the GNN~\citep{franceschi2019learning,chen2020iterative}. The Adaptive Message Calibration (AMC) module directly intervenes in this process by injecting a layer-wise, edge-specific structure prompt $\mathbf{e}_{ij}^{(l-1)}$ into each message. This prompt can be learned to: (1) \textit{strengthen or weaken} the message from a neighbor $v_j$ by aligning $\mathbf{e}_{ij}^{(l-1)}$ with $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_j^{(l-1)}$, simulating changes in edge weights~\citep{zhu2020deep};  
(2) \textit{nullify} a message (e.g., when $\mathbf{e}_{ij}^{(l-1)} \approx -\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_j^{(l-1)}$), which is equivalent to removing the edge $(v_i, v_j)$;  
(3) \textit{inject novel information} by designing $\mathbf{e}_{ij}^{(l-1)}$ independently of $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_j^{(l-1)}$, simulating the effect of virtual nodes or edges present in the target graph $\mathcal{G}'$ but absent in the original graph. Because this intervention is layer-wise, edge-specific, and dynamic, AMC can effectively replicate the complex information flow resulting from any structural modification in $\mathcal{G}'$~\citep{xu2018powerful}. 

In summary, the synergistic combination of AFR and AMC endows ADPrompt with expressive power to jointly simulate arbitrary feature and structural modifications of the input graph by learning the parameters of $\psi$ and $\varphi$. This establishes ADPrompt as a universal adapter that can guide the model to achieve a theoretical upper-bound of performance on downstream tasks.


\section{Theoretical Analysis: From Information-Theoretic Perspective}
\label{sec:info_theory_analysis}

We establish the theoretical foundation of ADPrompt’s fairness capability through from information-theoretic perspective. In particular, we formulate fairness in graph representation learning as an \textbf{Information Bottleneck (IB)} problem~\citep{tishby2000information,wu2020graph}. The IB principle states that an ideal node representation $\tilde{\mathbf{H}}$ should preserve maximal information about the task label $Y$, while suppressing information related to the sensitive attribute $S$. This trade-off can be formalized in the following Lagrangian form:
\begin{equation}
    \min_{\theta_{ADPrompt}} \; I(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}; S) - \beta \, I(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}; Y),
\end{equation}
where $I(\cdot; \cdot)$ denotes mutual information, $\theta_{ADPrompt}$ encompasses all learnable parameters (i.e., $\psi$ and $\varphi$), and $\beta > 0$ balances task relevance and sensitive information suppression. In practice, the training objective of ADPrompt, $\mathcal{L}_{Sup} - \lambda \mathcal{L}_{Adv}$, serves as an effective surrogate for this principle: $\mathcal{L}_{Sup}$ promotes the retention of task-relevant information $I(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}; Y)$, whereas $\mathcal{L}_{Adv}$ acts as a proxy for reducing sensitive information $I(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}; S)$.

\paragraph{Proof 3. Adaptive Feature Rectification (AFR) as an Input-Layer Bottleneck.}  
AFR acts as a bottleneck at the feature input layer~\citep{tishby2000information}. Raw node attributes $\mathbf{X}$ often contain sensitive information correlated with $S$, forming the initial source of bias. By optimizing the projector $\psi$ adversarially, AFR generates a gating prompt $\mathbf{m}_i$ per node through~\eqref{equation:5 attribute_prompt}.
This element-wise gating selectively suppresses sensitive dimensions in $\mathbf{x}_i$, ensuring
\begin{equation}
I(\tilde{\mathbf{X}}; S) \le I(\mathbf{X}; S),
\end{equation}
and providing a purified feature foundation for fair downstream propagation~\citep{jin2020graph}.

\paragraph{Proof 4. Adaptive Message Calibration (AMC) as a Layer-wise Regularizer.}  
Input purification alone cannot prevent bias amplification in message passing~\citep{dai2021fairgnn,dong2022edits}. AMC serves as a layer-wise regularizer by generating edge-specific calibration vectors according to~\eqref{equation:7 structure_prompt}.
These vectors act as corrective signals to suppress sensitive information propagated from neighbors, thereby reducing the mutual information:
\begin{equation}
I(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_i^{(l)}; S_{\mathcal{N}(i)}) \le I(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_i^{(l-1)}; S_{\mathcal{N}(i)}),
\end{equation}
which prevents bias accumulation across layers and ensures fairness in deep GNNs~\citep{tishby2000information,moyer2018invariant,oono2019graph}.

Together, AFR and AMC constitute a hierarchical information disentanglement strategy: 
(1) \textit{Attribute-level:} AFR disentangles node features from sensitive attributes, thereby suppressing biased information leakage directly at the feature source. 
(2) \textit{Structural-level:} AMC disentangles layer-wise representation updates from structural bias, acting as a progressive corrective mechanism that prevents the amplification of sensitive information throughout message passing. Trained under a unified adversarial objective, ADPrompt compresses sensitive information in the final node representations $\tilde{\mathbf{H}}$ while preserving task-relevant information about $Y$. This principled, information-theoretic design substantiates ADPrompt as an effective framework for fair graph representation learning.

\section{The Algorithm of ADPrompt}
The algorithm of ADPrompt is illustrated in Algorithm~\ref{alg:ADPrompt}.
\input{algorithm}

\section{More Details about Experiment Setup}
\label{sec:mode experiment details}


\subsection{Information about Dataset}
\label{sec:Dataset}
Table~\ref{table:dataset} summarizes the statistics of the datasets used in our experiments. Each dataset is associated with a sensitive attribute (e.g., age, gender, or region) and a binary prediction target (e.g., default status, customer credibility). Notably, in the Pokec-z and Pokec-n datasets, the ``working field" attribute has been binarized to facilitate binary classification tasks, as shown in prior work on fairness in graph learning~\citep{dai2021fairgnn,kose2024fairgat}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\resizebox{0.9\linewidth}{!}{
\input{table_dataset}
}
\caption{The statistics of the datasets used in our experiment.}
\label{table:dataset}
\end{table}



\subsection{Pre-training Strategies}  
\label{sec:Pre-training}
We employ several representative graph pre-training methods as summarized below.

\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{InfoMax}~\citep{velivckovic2018deep} is an unsupervised pre-training method that maximizes mutual information between node embeddings and a global summary via negative sampling, guiding the model to learn structure-aware representations for downstream tasks.
    \item \textbf{GraphCL}~\citep{you2020graph} is a contrastive learning-based approach that generates multiple structurally and semantically perturbed views of the same graph, resulting in robust and transferable node embeddings.
    \item \textbf{GAE}~\citep{kipf2016variational} conducts self-supervised pre-training by encoding node features via a GCN and reconstructing the adjacency matrix through an inner product decoder, guiding the model to capture the graph’s structural information.
    \item \textbf{BGRL}~\citep{thakoor2021bootstrapped} employs a self-supervised learning paradigm where two augmented views of the same graph are processed by online and target encoders, and their representations are aligned using a bootstrapping loss.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Baselines}  
\label{sec:baselines}
We evaluate our method against seven representative baselines. The details of each baseline are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Classifier Only} is a non-prompting baseline that uses a basic classifier.

    \item \textbf{Adversarial Learning} is also a non-prompting baseline that enhances model robustness by training against perturbations to the graph structure or node features.
    
    \item \textbf{GraphPrompt}~\citep{yu2024generalized} unifies pre-training and downstream tasks by introducing learnable prompt vectors into the readout layer of the graph encoder, which assists the model in retrieving task-relevant knowledge.

    \item \textbf{GPF}~\citep{fang2023universal} is a universal graph prompt tuning method that operates in the input feature space. It achieves prompting by adding a shared, learnable vector to all node features, making it applicable to any pre-trained GNN.

    \item \textbf{GPF-plus}~\citep{fang2023universal} improves upon GPF by using more sophisticated prompt designs in the input feature space to enhance performance on downstream tasks.

    \item \textbf{Self-pro}~\citep{gong2024self} handles heterophily by using an asymmetric graph contrastive learning framework, which generates prompts by structurally modifying the input graph to align pre-training and downstream objectives.

    \item \textbf{FPrompt}~\citep{li2025fairness} is a fairness-aware prompt tuning method that uses hybrid graph prompts to mitigate bias. It incorporates a fixed prompt to represent sensitive group embeddings and a learnable prompt to bridge the gap between pre-training and downstream tasks.

\end{itemize}


\section{More Experimental Results}
\label{sec:More Experimental Results}

\subsection{Model Comparison under 10-shot Setting}
\label{sec:10-shot}
To assess the effectiveness of our model in few-shot scenarios, we conduct a comparative study against seven competitive baselines under the 10-shot setting. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:10shot}, our method consistently achieves superior performance in terms of both fairness and predictive accuracy. Each experiment is repeated three times, and the average results are reported.

\begin{table*}[t]  
  \centering
  \caption{10-shot performance comparison of graph prompting methods under four pre-training strategies over four datasets (all values in \%).}
  \label{tab:10shot} 
  \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
  \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
    \Huge
    \input{10shot_table}
  \end{adjustbox}
\end{table*}


\subsection{Ablation Study}
\label{sec:ablation}
To demonstrate the efficacy of each module within our proposed method, we conducted a series of ablation experiments, specifically focusing on the AFR and the AMC. Across all four datasets, we consistently utilized the InfoMax pre-training method for these evaluations. As evidenced by the experimental results presented in Figure~\ref{fig:ablation}, both constituent parts of our method significantly contribute to enhancing performance on downstream tasks while simultaneously improving fairness.

\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{ablation_study.pdf} 
    \caption{Ablation study of ADPrompt across four datasets
    under InfoMax pre-training strategy.}
    \label{fig:ablation}
\end{figure}


\subsection{Performance Comparison Under Different Backbone Models}
\label{sec:backbone}
We also investigate the performance of ADPrompt with different backbones.
Table show the results on the Credit dataset with GraphSage~\citep{hamilton2017inductive} and GAT~\citep{velivckovic2018gat} as backbones pre-trained by InfoMax. 
From the table, we can observe that our method outperforms three state-of-the-art baselines.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\input{backbone}
\label{table:backbone}
\end{table}

\subsection{Performance Comparison of Structure Prompt Placements}
\label{sec:comparison_layer}
To assess the impact of dynamic message calibration in AMC, we compare ADPrompt with variants that apply the structure prompt only at the first or second layer. As shown in Table~\ref{table:layer}, across two pre-training strategies (InfoMax and GAE) and four datasets, ADPrompt consistently delivers higher accuracy and smaller fairness gaps, underscoring the benefit of dynamically calibrating structural information across layers rather than restricting it to a single layer.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\input{table_layer}
\caption{Performance comparison with different structure prompt placements.}
\label{table:layer}
\end{table}



\end{document}

%%%%% NEW MATH DEFINITIONS %%%%%

\usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,bm}

% Mark sections of captions for referring to divisions of figures
\newcommand{\figleft}{{\em (Left)}}
\newcommand{\figcenter}{{\em (Center)}}
\newcommand{\figright}{{\em (Right)}}
\newcommand{\figtop}{{\em (Top)}}
\newcommand{\figbottom}{{\em (Bottom)}}
\newcommand{\captiona}{{\em (a)}}
\newcommand{\captionb}{{\em (b)}}
\newcommand{\captionc}{{\em (c)}}
\newcommand{\captiond}{{\em (d)}}

% Highlight a newly defined term
\newcommand{\newterm}[1]{{\bf #1}}


% Figure reference, lower-case.
\def\figref#1{figure~\ref{#1}}
% Figure reference, capital. For start of sentence
\def\Figref#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
\def\twofigref#1#2{figures \ref{#1} and \ref{#2}}
\def\quadfigref#1#2#3#4{figures \ref{#1}, \ref{#2}, \ref{#3} and \ref{#4}}
% Section reference, lower-case.
\def\secref#1{section~\ref{#1}}
% Section reference, capital.
\def\Secref#1{Section~\ref{#1}}
% Reference to two sections.
\def\twosecrefs#1#2{sections \ref{#1} and \ref{#2}}
% Reference to three sections.
\def\secrefs#1#2#3{sections \ref{#1}, \ref{#2} and \ref{#3}}
% Reference to an equation, lower-case.
\def\eqref#1{equation~\ref{#1}}
% Reference to an equation, upper case
\def\Eqref#1{Equation~\ref{#1}}
% A raw reference to an equation---avoid using if possible
\def\plaineqref#1{\ref{#1}}
% Reference to a chapter, lower-case.
\def\chapref#1{chapter~\ref{#1}}
% Reference to an equation, upper case.
\def\Chapref#1{Chapter~\ref{#1}}
% Reference to a range of chapters
\def\rangechapref#1#2{chapters\ref{#1}--\ref{#2}}
% Reference to an algorithm, lower-case.
\def\algref#1{algorithm~\ref{#1}}
% Reference to an algorithm, upper case.
\def\Algref#1{Algorithm~\ref{#1}}
\def\twoalgref#1#2{algorithms \ref{#1} and \ref{#2}}
\def\Twoalgref#1#2{Algorithms \ref{#1} and \ref{#2}}
% Reference to a part, lower case
\def\partref#1{part~\ref{#1}}
% Reference to a part, upper case
\def\Partref#1{Part~\ref{#1}}
\def\twopartref#1#2{parts \ref{#1} and \ref{#2}}

\def\ceil#1{\lceil #1 \rceil}
\def\floor#1{\lfloor #1 \rfloor}
\def\1{\bm{1}}
\newcommand{\train}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\valid}{\mathcal{D_{\mathrm{valid}}}}
\newcommand{\test}{\mathcal{D_{\mathrm{test}}}}

\def\eps{{\epsilon}}


% Random variables
\def\reta{{\textnormal{$\eta$}}}
\def\ra{{\textnormal{a}}}
\def\rb{{\textnormal{b}}}
\def\rc{{\textnormal{c}}}
\def\rd{{\textnormal{d}}}
\def\re{{\textnormal{e}}}
\def\rf{{\textnormal{f}}}
\def\rg{{\textnormal{g}}}
\def\rh{{\textnormal{h}}}
\def\ri{{\textnormal{i}}}
\def\rj{{\textnormal{j}}}
\def\rk{{\textnormal{k}}}
\def\rl{{\textnormal{l}}}
% rm is already a command, just don't name any random variables m
\def\rn{{\textnormal{n}}}
\def\ro{{\textnormal{o}}}
\def\rp{{\textnormal{p}}}
\def\rq{{\textnormal{q}}}
\def\rr{{\textnormal{r}}}
\def\rs{{\textnormal{s}}}
\def\rt{{\textnormal{t}}}
\def\ru{{\textnormal{u}}}
\def\rv{{\textnormal{v}}}
\def\rw{{\textnormal{w}}}
\def\rx{{\textnormal{x}}}
\def\ry{{\textnormal{y}}}
\def\rz{{\textnormal{z}}}

% Random vectors
\def\rvepsilon{{\mathbf{\epsilon}}}
\def\rvtheta{{\mathbf{\theta}}}
\def\rva{{\mathbf{a}}}
\def\rvb{{\mathbf{b}}}
\def\rvc{{\mathbf{c}}}
\def\rvd{{\mathbf{d}}}
\def\rve{{\mathbf{e}}}
\def\rvf{{\mathbf{f}}}
\def\rvg{{\mathbf{g}}}
\def\rvh{{\mathbf{h}}}
\def\rvu{{\mathbf{i}}}
\def\rvj{{\mathbf{j}}}
\def\rvk{{\mathbf{k}}}
\def\rvl{{\mathbf{l}}}
\def\rvm{{\mathbf{m}}}
\def\rvn{{\mathbf{n}}}
\def\rvo{{\mathbf{o}}}
\def\rvp{{\mathbf{p}}}
\def\rvq{{\mathbf{q}}}
\def\rvr{{\mathbf{r}}}
\def\rvs{{\mathbf{s}}}
\def\rvt{{\mathbf{t}}}
\def\rvu{{\mathbf{u}}}
\def\rvv{{\mathbf{v}}}
\def\rvw{{\mathbf{w}}}
\def\rvx{{\mathbf{x}}}
\def\rvy{{\mathbf{y}}}
\def\rvz{{\mathbf{z}}}

% Elements of random vectors
\def\erva{{\textnormal{a}}}
\def\ervb{{\textnormal{b}}}
\def\ervc{{\textnormal{c}}}
\def\ervd{{\textnormal{d}}}
\def\erve{{\textnormal{e}}}
\def\ervf{{\textnormal{f}}}
\def\ervg{{\textnormal{g}}}
\def\ervh{{\textnormal{h}}}
\def\ervi{{\textnormal{i}}}
\def\ervj{{\textnormal{j}}}
\def\ervk{{\textnormal{k}}}
\def\ervl{{\textnormal{l}}}
\def\ervm{{\textnormal{m}}}
\def\ervn{{\textnormal{n}}}
\def\ervo{{\textnormal{o}}}
\def\ervp{{\textnormal{p}}}
\def\ervq{{\textnormal{q}}}
\def\ervr{{\textnormal{r}}}
\def\ervs{{\textnormal{s}}}
\def\ervt{{\textnormal{t}}}
\def\ervu{{\textnormal{u}}}
\def\ervv{{\textnormal{v}}}
\def\ervw{{\textnormal{w}}}
\def\ervx{{\textnormal{x}}}
\def\ervy{{\textnormal{y}}}
\def\ervz{{\textnormal{z}}}

% Random matrices
\def\rmA{{\mathbf{A}}}
\def\rmB{{\mathbf{B}}}
\def\rmC{{\mathbf{C}}}
\def\rmD{{\mathbf{D}}}
\def\rmE{{\mathbf{E}}}
\def\rmF{{\mathbf{F}}}
\def\rmG{{\mathbf{G}}}
\def\rmH{{\mathbf{H}}}
\def\rmI{{\mathbf{I}}}
\def\rmJ{{\mathbf{J}}}
\def\rmK{{\mathbf{K}}}
\def\rmL{{\mathbf{L}}}
\def\rmM{{\mathbf{M}}}
\def\rmN{{\mathbf{N}}}
\def\rmO{{\mathbf{O}}}
\def\rmP{{\mathbf{P}}}
\def\rmQ{{\mathbf{Q}}}
\def\rmR{{\mathbf{R}}}
\def\rmS{{\mathbf{S}}}
\def\rmT{{\mathbf{T}}}
\def\rmU{{\mathbf{U}}}
\def\rmV{{\mathbf{V}}}
\def\rmW{{\mathbf{W}}}
\def\rmX{{\mathbf{X}}}
\def\rmY{{\mathbf{Y}}}
\def\rmZ{{\mathbf{Z}}}

% Elements of random matrices
\def\ermA{{\textnormal{A}}}
\def\ermB{{\textnormal{B}}}
\def\ermC{{\textnormal{C}}}
\def\ermD{{\textnormal{D}}}
\def\ermE{{\textnormal{E}}}
\def\ermF{{\textnormal{F}}}
\def\ermG{{\textnormal{G}}}
\def\ermH{{\textnormal{H}}}
\def\ermI{{\textnormal{I}}}
\def\ermJ{{\textnormal{J}}}
\def\ermK{{\textnormal{K}}}
\def\ermL{{\textnormal{L}}}
\def\ermM{{\textnormal{M}}}
\def\ermN{{\textnormal{N}}}
\def\ermO{{\textnormal{O}}}
\def\ermP{{\textnormal{P}}}
\def\ermQ{{\textnormal{Q}}}
\def\ermR{{\textnormal{R}}}
\def\ermS{{\textnormal{S}}}
\def\ermT{{\textnormal{T}}}
\def\ermU{{\textnormal{U}}}
\def\ermV{{\textnormal{V}}}
\def\ermW{{\textnormal{W}}}
\def\ermX{{\textnormal{X}}}
\def\ermY{{\textnormal{Y}}}
\def\ermZ{{\textnormal{Z}}}

% Vectors
\def\vzero{{\bm{0}}}
\def\vone{{\bm{1}}}
\def\vmu{{\bm{\mu}}}
\def\vtheta{{\bm{\theta}}}
\def\va{{\bm{a}}}
\def\vb{{\bm{b}}}
\def\vc{{\bm{c}}}
\def\vd{{\bm{d}}}
\def\ve{{\bm{e}}}
\def\vf{{\bm{f}}}
\def\vg{{\bm{g}}}
\def\vh{{\bm{h}}}
\def\vi{{\bm{i}}}
\def\vj{{\bm{j}}}
\def\vk{{\bm{k}}}
\def\vl{{\bm{l}}}
\def\vm{{\bm{m}}}
\def\vn{{\bm{n}}}
\def\vo{{\bm{o}}}
\def\vp{{\bm{p}}}
\def\vq{{\bm{q}}}
\def\vr{{\bm{r}}}
\def\vs{{\bm{s}}}
\def\vt{{\bm{t}}}
\def\vu{{\bm{u}}}
\def\vv{{\bm{v}}}
\def\vw{{\bm{w}}}
\def\vx{{\bm{x}}}
\def\vy{{\bm{y}}}
\def\vz{{\bm{z}}}

% Elements of vectors
\def\evalpha{{\alpha}}
\def\evbeta{{\beta}}
\def\evepsilon{{\epsilon}}
\def\evlambda{{\lambda}}
\def\evomega{{\omega}}
\def\evmu{{\mu}}
\def\evpsi{{\psi}}
\def\evsigma{{\sigma}}
\def\evtheta{{\theta}}
\def\eva{{a}}
\def\evb{{b}}
\def\evc{{c}}
\def\evd{{d}}
\def\eve{{e}}
\def\evf{{f}}
\def\evg{{g}}
\def\evh{{h}}
\def\evi{{i}}
\def\evj{{j}}
\def\evk{{k}}
\def\evl{{l}}
\def\evm{{m}}
\def\evn{{n}}
\def\evo{{o}}
\def\evp{{p}}
\def\evq{{q}}
\def\evr{{r}}
\def\evs{{s}}
\def\evt{{t}}
\def\evu{{u}}
\def\evv{{v}}
\def\evw{{w}}
\def\evx{{x}}
\def\evy{{y}}
\def\evz{{z}}

% Matrix
\def\mA{{\bm{A}}}
\def\mB{{\bm{B}}}
\def\mC{{\bm{C}}}
\def\mD{{\bm{D}}}
\def\mE{{\bm{E}}}
\def\mF{{\bm{F}}}
\def\mG{{\bm{G}}}
\def\mH{{\bm{H}}}
\def\mI{{\bm{I}}}
\def\mJ{{\bm{J}}}
\def\mK{{\bm{K}}}
\def\mL{{\bm{L}}}
\def\mM{{\bm{M}}}
\def\mN{{\bm{N}}}
\def\mO{{\bm{O}}}
\def\mP{{\bm{P}}}
\def\mQ{{\bm{Q}}}
\def\mR{{\bm{R}}}
\def\mS{{\bm{S}}}
\def\mT{{\bm{T}}}
\def\mU{{\bm{U}}}
\def\mV{{\bm{V}}}
\def\mW{{\bm{W}}}
\def\mX{{\bm{X}}}
\def\mY{{\bm{Y}}}
\def\mZ{{\bm{Z}}}
\def\mBeta{{\bm{\beta}}}
\def\mPhi{{\bm{\Phi}}}
\def\mLambda{{\bm{\Lambda}}}
\def\mSigma{{\bm{\Sigma}}}

% Tensor
\DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathsfit}{\encodingdefault}{\sfdefault}{m}{sl}
\SetMathAlphabet{\mathsfit}{bold}{\encodingdefault}{\sfdefault}{bx}{n}
\newcommand{\tens}[1]{\bm{\mathsfit{#1}}}
\def\tA{{\tens{A}}}
\def\tB{{\tens{B}}}
\def\tC{{\tens{C}}}
\def\tD{{\tens{D}}}
\def\tE{{\tens{E}}}
\def\tF{{\tens{F}}}
\def\tG{{\tens{G}}}
\def\tH{{\tens{H}}}
\def\tI{{\tens{I}}}
\def\tJ{{\tens{J}}}
\def\tK{{\tens{K}}}
\def\tL{{\tens{L}}}
\def\tM{{\tens{M}}}
\def\tN{{\tens{N}}}
\def\tO{{\tens{O}}}
\def\tP{{\tens{P}}}
\def\tQ{{\tens{Q}}}
\def\tR{{\tens{R}}}
\def\tS{{\tens{S}}}
\def\tT{{\tens{T}}}
\def\tU{{\tens{U}}}
\def\tV{{\tens{V}}}
\def\tW{{\tens{W}}}
\def\tX{{\tens{X}}}
\def\tY{{\tens{Y}}}
\def\tZ{{\tens{Z}}}


% Graph
\def\gA{{\mathcal{A}}}
\def\gB{{\mathcal{B}}}
\def\gC{{\mathcal{C}}}
\def\gD{{\mathcal{D}}}
\def\gE{{\mathcal{E}}}
\def\gF{{\mathcal{F}}}
\def\gG{{\mathcal{G}}}
\def\gH{{\mathcal{H}}}
\def\gI{{\mathcal{I}}}
\def\gJ{{\mathcal{J}}}
\def\gK{{\mathcal{K}}}
\def\gL{{\mathcal{L}}}
\def\gM{{\mathcal{M}}}
\def\gN{{\mathcal{N}}}
\def\gO{{\mathcal{O}}}
\def\gP{{\mathcal{P}}}
\def\gQ{{\mathcal{Q}}}
\def\gR{{\mathcal{R}}}
\def\gS{{\mathcal{S}}}
\def\gT{{\mathcal{T}}}
\def\gU{{\mathcal{U}}}
\def\gV{{\mathcal{V}}}
\def\gW{{\mathcal{W}}}
\def\gX{{\mathcal{X}}}
\def\gY{{\mathcal{Y}}}
\def\gZ{{\mathcal{Z}}}

% Sets
\def\sA{{\mathbb{A}}}
\def\sB{{\mathbb{B}}}
\def\sC{{\mathbb{C}}}
\def\sD{{\mathbb{D}}}
% Don't use a set called E, because this would be the same as our symbol
% for expectation.
\def\sF{{\mathbb{F}}}
\def\sG{{\mathbb{G}}}
\def\sH{{\mathbb{H}}}
\def\sI{{\mathbb{I}}}
\def\sJ{{\mathbb{J}}}
\def\sK{{\mathbb{K}}}
\def\sL{{\mathbb{L}}}
\def\sM{{\mathbb{M}}}
\def\sN{{\mathbb{N}}}
\def\sO{{\mathbb{O}}}
\def\sP{{\mathbb{P}}}
\def\sQ{{\mathbb{Q}}}
\def\sR{{\mathbb{R}}}
\def\sS{{\mathbb{S}}}
\def\sT{{\mathbb{T}}}
\def\sU{{\mathbb{U}}}
\def\sV{{\mathbb{V}}}
\def\sW{{\mathbb{W}}}
\def\sX{{\mathbb{X}}}
\def\sY{{\mathbb{Y}}}
\def\sZ{{\mathbb{Z}}}

% Entries of a matrix
\def\emLambda{{\Lambda}}
\def\emA{{A}}
\def\emB{{B}}
\def\emC{{C}}
\def\emD{{D}}
\def\emE{{E}}
\def\emF{{F}}
\def\emG{{G}}
\def\emH{{H}}
\def\emI{{I}}
\def\emJ{{J}}
\def\emK{{K}}
\def\emL{{L}}
\def\emM{{M}}
\def\emN{{N}}
\def\emO{{O}}
\def\emP{{P}}
\def\emQ{{Q}}
\def\emR{{R}}
\def\emS{{S}}
\def\emT{{T}}
\def\emU{{U}}
\def\emV{{V}}
\def\emW{{W}}
\def\emX{{X}}
\def\emY{{Y}}
\def\emZ{{Z}}
\def\emSigma{{\Sigma}}

% entries of a tensor
% Same font as tensor, without \bm wrapper
\newcommand{\etens}[1]{\mathsfit{#1}}
\def\etLambda{{\etens{\Lambda}}}
\def\etA{{\etens{A}}}
\def\etB{{\etens{B}}}
\def\etC{{\etens{C}}}
\def\etD{{\etens{D}}}
\def\etE{{\etens{E}}}
\def\etF{{\etens{F}}}
\def\etG{{\etens{G}}}
\def\etH{{\etens{H}}}
\def\etI{{\etens{I}}}
\def\etJ{{\etens{J}}}
\def\etK{{\etens{K}}}
\def\etL{{\etens{L}}}
\def\etM{{\etens{M}}}
\def\etN{{\etens{N}}}
\def\etO{{\etens{O}}}
\def\etP{{\etens{P}}}
\def\etQ{{\etens{Q}}}
\def\etR{{\etens{R}}}
\def\etS{{\etens{S}}}
\def\etT{{\etens{T}}}
\def\etU{{\etens{U}}}
\def\etV{{\etens{V}}}
\def\etW{{\etens{W}}}
\def\etX{{\etens{X}}}
\def\etY{{\etens{Y}}}
\def\etZ{{\etens{Z}}}

% The true underlying data generating distribution
\newcommand{\pdata}{p_{\rm{data}}}
% The empirical distribution defined by the training set
\newcommand{\ptrain}{\hat{p}_{\rm{data}}}
\newcommand{\Ptrain}{\hat{P}_{\rm{data}}}
% The model distribution
\newcommand{\pmodel}{p_{\rm{model}}}
\newcommand{\Pmodel}{P_{\rm{model}}}
\newcommand{\ptildemodel}{\tilde{p}_{\rm{model}}}
% Stochastic autoencoder distributions
\newcommand{\pencode}{p_{\rm{encoder}}}
\newcommand{\pdecode}{p_{\rm{decoder}}}
\newcommand{\precons}{p_{\rm{reconstruct}}}

\newcommand{\laplace}{\mathrm{Laplace}} % Laplace distribution

\newcommand{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\Ls}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\emp}{\tilde{p}}
\newcommand{\lr}{\alpha}
\newcommand{\reg}{\lambda}
\newcommand{\rect}{\mathrm{rectifier}}
\newcommand{\softmax}{\mathrm{softmax}}
\newcommand{\sigmoid}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\softplus}{\zeta}
\newcommand{\KL}{D_{\mathrm{KL}}}
\newcommand{\Var}{\mathrm{Var}}
\newcommand{\standarderror}{\mathrm{SE}}
\newcommand{\Cov}{\mathrm{Cov}}
% Wolfram Mathworld says $L^2$ is for function spaces and $\ell^2$ is for vectors
% But then they seem to use $L^2$ for vectors throughout the site, and so does
% wikipedia.
\newcommand{\normlzero}{L^0}
\newcommand{\normlone}{L^1}
\newcommand{\normltwo}{L^2}
\newcommand{\normlp}{L^p}
\newcommand{\normmax}{L^\infty}

\newcommand{\parents}{Pa} % See usage in notation.tex. Chosen to match Daphne's book.

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}

\DeclareMathOperator{\sign}{sign}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{Tr}
\let\ab\allowbreak

{
% \Huge
\newcommand{\bfsize}[1]{{\bfseries\fontsize{27pt}{16pt}\selectfont #1}}
\newcommand{\bfunderline}[1]{\underline{\fontsize{26pt}{16pt}\selectfont #1}}

\begin{tabular}{ll|ccc|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30}
\specialrule{3pt}{0pt}{0pt}
& 
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Credit}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{German}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Pokec\_n}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Pokec\_z}} \\

\cline{3-14}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30}
\multirow{-2}{*}{\textbf{Pre-training}}
& \multirow{-2}{*}{\textbf{Tuning}}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)} \\
\specialrule{2pt}{0pt}{0pt}

\multirow{8}{*}{InfoMax}
& Classifier only & 54.19 & 3.80 & 2.03 & 58.50 & 8.50 & 7.29 & 70.22 & 3.96 & \bfunderline{1.56} & 70.13 & 1.19 & 6.12 \\
& Adversarial learning & \bfsize{59.67} & 2.97 & 2.91 & 61.80 & \bfsize{0.82} & 6.39 & \bfunderline{71.68} & 0.98 & 2.67 & 70.11 & 0.99 & 5.01 \\
& GraphPrompt & 49.38 & 2.67 & 3.29 & 61.50 & 2.21 & \bfunderline{2.51} & \bfsize{73.94} & 0.65 & 2.15 & \bfsize{73.63} & 1.51 & 0.97 \\
& GPF & 56.68 & 3.67 & 2.41 & 58.17 & 1.70 & 6.34 & 69.03 & 2.80 & 1.89 & 68.94 & 3.12 & 1.94 \\
& GPF+ & 55.03 & 1.82 & 2.22 & 59.33 & 5.58 & 4.02 & 69.42 & 2.27 & 1.81 & 68.48 & 1.75 & 2.07 \\
& Self-pro & 46.49 & 2.86 & 2.13 & \bfunderline{61.83} & 8.95 & 5.80 & 66.89 & \bfunderline{0.29} & 2.54 & 70.40 & \bfunderline{0.98} & 3.16 \\
& FPrompt & 55.99 & \bfunderline{1.69} & \bfunderline{1.55} & 52.50 & 4.22 & 5.11 & 71.19 & 3.05 & 1.59 & 68.83 & 3.03 & \bfunderline{0.82} \\
& ADPrompt & \bfunderline{58.14} & \bfsize{1.08} & \bfsize{1.48} & \bfsize{64.33} & \bfunderline{1.18} & \bfsize{1.32} & 69.89 & \bfsize{0.22} & \bfsize{1.44} & \bfunderline{70.48} & \bfsize{0.92} & \bfsize{0.70} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}

\multirow{8}{*}{GraphCL}
& Classifier only & \bfunderline{59.10} & 4.38 & 4.37 & \bfunderline{64.50} & 4.52 & \bfunderline{2.63} & 70.42 & 2.10 & 3.84 & 71.25 & 5.48 & 10.00 \\
& Adversarial learning & 58.50 & 2.45 & 3.75 & 57.83 & \bfunderline{2.58} & 4.06 & 70.41 & \bfsize{0.35} & 3.12 & 70.64 & 3.40 & 6.26 \\
& GraphPrompt & 57.19 & \bfunderline{0.93} & \bfunderline{1.67} & 60.17 & 6.44 & 5.63 & 64.61 & 4.45 & 6.50 & 62.22 & 1.24 & \bfunderline{1.11} \\
& GPF & 55.19 & 2.23 & 2.04 & 50.07 & 7.09 & 3.73 & 69.44 & 4.13 & 2.10 & \bfsize{74.41} & 3.35 & 1.43 \\
& GPF+ & 58.43 & 2.53 & 2.54 & 56.83 & 4.78 & 5.07 & \bfunderline{72.85} & 1.28 & 2.17 & \bfunderline{74.24} & 5.20 & 2.17 \\
& Self-pro & 57.61 & 1.51 & 2.27 & 62.00 & 2.96 & 5.51 & 71.78 & 5.27 & \bfunderline{1.51} & 71.18 & \bfunderline{0.93} & 2.50 \\
& FPrompt & 54.83 & 4.10 & 3.93 & 58.67 & 3.47 & 3.73 & 72.55 & \bfunderline{0.54} & 2.29 & 70.37 & 1.01 & 4.21 \\
& ADPrompt & \bfsize{59.86} & \bfsize{0.91} & \bfsize{1.54} & \bfsize{65.50} & \bfsize{2.14} & \bfsize{2.62} & \bfsize{76.05} & 1.27 & \bfsize{0.58} & 70.33 & \bfsize{0.89} & \bfsize{1.04} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}

\multirow{8}{*}{GAE}
& Classifier only & 55.78 & 2.25 & 3.29 & 55.50 & 5.72 & 7.09 & 70.63 & 2.40 & 2.08 & 69.97 & 2.37 & 7.08 \\
& Adversarial learning & 53.31 & 3.81 & 4.40 & 57.00 & 8.47 & 9.78 & 69.50 & 3.64 & 0.79 & 71.09 & \bfunderline{1.37} & 2.95 \\
& GraphPrompt & \bfunderline{62.93} & 1.59 & 3.08 & 59.17 & 3.37 & \bfunderline{3.06} & \bfsize{73.92} & 2.15 & 4.56 & 73.31 & 4.13 & 0.91 \\
& GPF & 54.63 & 3.39 & 2.23 & 50.33 & 7.38 & 4.68 & 68.94 & 2.24 & 1.71 & 67.67 & 2.69 & 1.52 \\
& GPF+ & 57.30 & 2.30 & 1.51 & 51.00 & 6.50 & 6.97 & 69.63 & 2.13 & 1.77 & 70.05 & 2.60 & 2.20 \\
& Self-pro & 57.91 & \bfunderline{1.43} & \bfunderline{1.37} & 50.67 & \bfunderline{2.71} & 3.57 & 73.54 & \bfunderline{1.93} & \bfunderline{0.47} & \bfunderline{74.03} & 1.53 & 1.60 \\
& FPrompt & 57.74 & 3.07 & 3.70 & \bfunderline{61.67} & 6.13 & 4.57 & 71.93 & 4.89 & 0.58 & 68.40 & 1.58 & \bfsize{0.69} \\
& ADPrompt & \bfsize{64.86} & \bfsize{1.37} & \bfsize{1.28} & \bfsize{62.17} & \bfsize{2.22} & \bfsize{2.32} & \bfunderline{73.62} & \bfsize{1.90} & \bfsize{0.44} & \bfsize{75.09} & \bfsize{1.25} & \bfunderline{0.84} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}

\multirow{8}{*}{BGRL}
& Classifier only & 55.03 & 2.88 & 3.59 & 63.33 & 7.23 & 9.60 & 70.09 & 2.22 & 4.43 & 70.34 & 6.30 & 1.11 \\
& Adversarial learning & 52.12 & 3.70 & 3.32 & 60.17 & 5.20 & 3.71 & 69.87 & 1.77 & 2.39 & \bfunderline{70.54} & 5.44 & 8.79 \\
& GraphPrompt & 56.06 & 4.52 & 2.89 & 58.49 & 5.54 & 4.96 & \bfunderline{73.63} & 1.51 & 2.42 & \bfsize{70.68} & 2.45 & 2.77 \\
& GPF & \bfunderline{56.86} & 3.07 & 2.92 & 60.25 & 6.07 & 3.53 & 70.09 & 2.24 & 1.95 & 67.93 & 2.18 & 2.42 \\
& GPF+ & 56.87 & 3.21 & \bfsize{1.58} & 61.00 & 8.49 & 4.49 & 70.98 & 1.24 & \bfsize{1.77} & 69.39 & 2.22 & 1.10 \\
& Self-pro & 53.29 & 2.62 & 2.41 & 47.00 & 5.74 & 9.20 & 70.40 & \bfunderline{0.96} & 3.16 & 62.53 & \bfsize{0.85} & 2.40 \\
& FPrompt & 55.80 & \bfunderline{2.42} & 2.95 & \bfunderline{64.50} & \bfunderline{3.35} & \bfunderline{3.43} & 68.83 & 3.03 & \bfunderline{1.82} & 65.07 & 1.43 & \bfunderline{0.82} \\
& ADPrompt & \bfsize{58.24} & \bfsize{2.12} & \bfunderline{1.89} & \bfsize{65.00} & \bfsize{2.34} & \bfsize{2.37} & \bfsize{75.63} & \bfsize{0.92} & \bfsize{1.77} & 66.12 & \bfunderline{0.99} & \bfsize{0.67} \\
\specialrule{3pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\end{tabular}
}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{ADPrompt}
\label{alg:ADPrompt}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} pre-trained GNN model $\theta$; graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ with node attributes $\mathbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{D_x}$ and neighbors $\mathcal{N}(v_i)$; hyperparameters: trade-off $\lambda$, learning rate $\eta$, total epochs $E$, current epoch $e$.
\STATE \textbf{Output:} attribute projector $\psi$, structure projector $\varphi$, predictor $\pi$,
\FOR{$e = 1$ to $E$}
    \FOR{$v_i \in \mathcal{V}$}
        \STATE Compute $m_i = \sigma(\psi(x_i))$ using~\eqref{equation:5 attribute_prompt}
        \STATE Compute $\tilde{x}_i$ using~\eqref{equation:4 prompted_attribute}
    \ENDFOR
    \FOR{$l = 1$ to $L$}
        \FOR{$v_i \in \mathcal{V}$}
            \FOR{$v_j \in \mathcal{N}(v_i)$}
                \STATE Compute $e_{ij}^{(l-1)} = \varphi(\tilde{h}_i^{(l-1)}, \tilde{h}_j^{(l-1)})$ using~\eqref{equation:7 structure_prompt}
            \ENDFOR
            \STATE Update $\tilde{h}_i^{(l)}$ using~\eqref{equation:6 prompted_representation}
        \ENDFOR
    \ENDFOR
    \FOR{$v_i \in \mathcal{V}$}
        \STATE Compute $\hat{y}_i = \pi(\tilde{h}_i^{(L)})$, \; $\hat{s}_i = \omega(\tilde{h}_i^{(L)})$
    \ENDFOR
    \STATE Compute $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Sup}}(\psi, \varphi, \pi)$ using~\eqref{equation:supervised}
    \STATE Compute $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Adv}}(\psi, \varphi, \omega)$ using~\eqref{equation:adversary}
    \STATE Update $\psi \leftarrow \psi - \eta \nabla_\psi [\mathcal{L}_{\text{Sup}}(\psi,\varphi,\pi) - \lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{Adv}}(\psi,\varphi,\omega)]$
    \STATE Update $\varphi \leftarrow \varphi - \eta \nabla_\varphi [\mathcal{L}_{\text{Sup}}(\psi,\varphi,\pi) - \lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{Adv}}(\psi,\varphi,\omega)]$
    \STATE Update $\pi \leftarrow \pi - \eta \nabla_\pi \mathcal{L}_{\text{Sup}}(\psi,\varphi,\pi)$
    \STATE Update $\omega \leftarrow \omega - \eta \nabla_\omega [\lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{Adv}}(\psi,\varphi,\omega)]$
\ENDFOR
\STATE \textbf{Return:} $\psi, \varphi, \pi$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

\begin{tabular}{lrrrcc}
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30}
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Nodes} & \textbf{Edges} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Sensitive} & \textbf{Label} \\
\specialrule{0.7pt}{0pt}{0pt}
Credit & 30,000 & 1,421,858 & 13 & Age & Future default \\
German & 1,000 & 22,242 & 27 & Gender & GoodCustomer \\
Pokec\_z & 67,797 & 882,765 & 277 & Region & Working Field \\
Pokec\_n & 66,569 & 729,129 & 267 & Region & Working Field \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\end{tabular}
{
% \Huge
\newcommand{\bfsize}[1]{{\bfseries\fontsize{27pt}{16pt}\selectfont #1}}
\newcommand{\bfunderline}[1]{\underline{\fontsize{26pt}{16pt}\selectfont #1}}

\begin{tabular}{ll|ccc|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30}
\specialrule{3pt}{0pt}{0pt}
& 
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Credit}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{German}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Pokec\_n}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Pokec\_z}} \\

\cline{3-14}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30}
\multirow{-2}{*}{\textbf{Pre-training}}
& \multirow{-2}{*}{\textbf{Tuning}}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)}
& \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)} \\
\specialrule{2pt}{0pt}{0pt}

\multirow{8}{*}{InfoMax}
& Classifier only & 54.19 & 1.80 & \bfunderline{2.03} & 58.50 & 8.50 & 7.29 & 70.22 & 3.96 & 1.56 & \bfunderline{70.13} & 1.19 & 6.12 \\
& Adversarial learning & \bfsize{59.67} & 2.97 & 2.91 & \bfunderline{61.80} & \bfunderline{0.82} & 6.39 & \bfunderline{71.68} & \bfunderline{0.98} & 2.67 & 70.11 & \bfunderline{0.99} & 5.01 \\
& GraphPrompt & 55.43 & 2.75 & 4.66 & 53.67 & 5.35 & 2.39 & 68.56 & 4.75 & 2.67 & 67.44 & 4.32 & 3.55 \\
& GPF & 57.39 & 3.87 & 2.81 & 56.33 & 3.77 & \bfsize{1.07} & 68.60 & 2.83 & \bfunderline{1.46} & 66.11 & 1.31 & 3.65 \\
& GPF+ & 53.35 & 3.09 & 3.01 & 58.67 & 3.87 & 4.24 & 64.27 & 2.83 & 1.59 & 67.32 & 3.19 & \bfsize{1.63} \\
& Self-pro & \bfunderline{58.93} & \bfunderline{1.61} & 2.19 & 61.32 & 4.07 & 6.94 & 71.60 & 2.04 & 4.97 & 69.94 & 6.83 & 5.02 \\
& FPrompt & 51.52 & 3.62 & 2.44 & 58.50 & \bfsize{0.27} & 2.25 & 71.55 & 3.69 & 2.45 & 66.43 & 3.69 & \bfunderline{2.43} \\
& ADPrompt& 56.01 & \bfsize{1.32} & \bfsize{1.20} & \bfsize{62.67} & 1.40 & \bfunderline{2.21} & \bfsize{71.84} & \bfsize{0.92} & \bfsize{1.38} & \bfsize{70.87} & \bfsize{0.97} & 2.72 \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\multirow{8}{*}{GraphCL}
& Classifier only & \bfunderline{59.10} & 4.38 & 4.37 & \bfsize{64.50} & 4.52 & \bfunderline{2.63} & 70.42 & 2.10 & 3.84 & 71.25 & 5.48 & 10.00 \\
& Adversarial learning & 58.50 & 2.45 & 3.75 & 57.83 & \bfunderline{2.14} & 4.06 & 70.41 & \bfsize{0.35} & 3.12 & 70.64 & 3.40 & 6.26 \\
& GraphPrompt & 50.37 & 3.15 & 3.03 & 51.33 & 8.02 & 8.74 & 64.22 & 11.27 & 9.11 & 63.42 & 2.00 & 1.68 \\
& GPF & 56.76 & 2.19 & 1.89 & 53.50 & 9.19 & 8.97 & 69.29 & 6.57 & 6.44 & 63.40 & 6.24 & 7.80 \\
& GPF+ & 55.60 & \bfunderline{1.36} & \bfunderline{1.75} & 52.17 & 3.73 & 4.08 & \bfsize{73.56} & 3.66 & \bfunderline{1.74} & \bfsize{73.18} & 3.73 & \bfunderline{1.04} \\
& Self-pro & 52.71 & 1.92 & 2.13 & \bfunderline{64.00} & 5.44 & 4.74 & 70.85 & 6.99 & 6.80 & 68.87 & \bfunderline{1.19} & 1.86 \\
& FPrompt & 54.52 & 3.92 & 4.40 & 55.33 & 3.98 & 3.79 & \bfunderline{71.07} & 2.87 & 2.21 & 70.61 & 3.84 & 4.73 \\
& ADPrompt& \bfsize{59.80} & \bfsize{0.82} & \bfsize{0.57} & 61.50 & \bfsize{0.62} & \bfsize{1.92} & 70.97 & \bfunderline{1.62} & \bfsize{0.83} & \bfunderline{71.34} & \bfsize{0.71} & \bfsize{0.75} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\multirow{8}{*}{GAE}
& Classifier only & 55.78 & 2.25 & 3.29 & 55.50 & 5.72 & 7.09 & 70.63 & 2.40 & 2.08 & \bfunderline{69.97} & 2.37 & 7.08 \\
& Adversarial learning & 53.31 & 3.81 & 4.40 & 57.00 & 8.47 & 9.78 & 69.50 & 3.64 & \bfunderline{0.79} & \bfsize{71.09} & \bfunderline{1.37} & 2.94 \\
& GraphPrompt & 53.51 & 1.97 & \bfunderline{0.92} & \bfunderline{58.32} & \bfunderline{3.56} & 4.36 & 69.75 & 5.76 & 1.78 & 67.32 & 2.03 & \bfunderline{2.22} \\
& GPF & 51.12 & 1.99 & 1.77 & 53.50 & 4.99 & 5.73 & 66.41 & \bfunderline{1.33} & 1.32 & 67.24 & 1.88 & 2.33 \\
& GPF+ & 49.29 & 1.77 & 2.09 & 55.50 & 4.27 & \bfunderline{1.52} & \bfsize{74.65} & 1.89 & 2.93 & 65.44 & 2.04 & 3.73 \\
& Self-pro & 46.98 & 2.70 & 1.60 & 45.00 & 5.01 & 5.01 & 64.03 & 2.53 & 4.58 & 66.44 & 3.88 & 8.74 \\
& FPrompt & \bfunderline{59.98} & \bfunderline{1.61} & 1.60 & 49.63 & 4.00 & 3.07 & 66.75 & 1.44 & 2.60 & 63.54 & 1.60 & 2.33 \\
& ADPrompt& \bfsize{61.46} & \bfsize{1.40} & \bfsize{0.87} & \bfsize{63.78} & \bfsize{0.81} & \bfsize{1.46} & \bfunderline{70.64} & \bfsize{0.93} & \bfsize{0.71} & 67.47 & \bfsize{0.35} & \bfsize{0.28} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\multirow{8}{*}{BGRL}
& Classifier only & \bfsize{55.03} & 2.88 & 3.59 & \bfunderline{63.33} & 7.23 & 9.60 & \bfunderline{70.09} & 2.22 & 4.43 & 70.34 & 6.30 & \bfunderline{1.11} \\
& Adversarial learning & 52.12 & 3.70 & 3.32 & 60.17 & 5.20 & \bfunderline{3.71} & 68.87 & 1.77 & 2.39 & \bfunderline{70.54} & 5.44 & 8.79 \\
& GraphPrompt & 54.62 & 4.44 & 4.70 & 58.54 & 5.23 & 6.24 & 69.12 & 3.45 & 2.75 & 68.55 & 2.83 & 6.33 \\
& GPF & 51.82 & 2.68 & 2.48 & 60.17 & 3.16 & 4.23 & 67.65 & 3.62 & 1.79 & 66.28 & 2.42 & 2.50 \\
& GPF+ & 54.50 & \bfunderline{1.15} & \bfunderline{1.44} & 54.67 & 6.29 & 4.35 & 68.52 & 3.49 & 2.03 & 67.20 & \bfunderline{2.12} & \bfsize{1.07} \\
& Self-pro & 53.03 & 1.41 & \bfsize{1.41} & 56.83 & 6.67 & 5.07 & 69.18 & 4.77 & 4.23 & 65.58 & 4.09 & 5.43 \\
& FPrompt & 53.72 & 2.26 & 2.08 & 56.00 & \bfunderline{2.97} & 5.73 & 69.05 & \bfsize{1.08} & \bfunderline{1.33} & 67.75 & 2.37 & 2.80 \\
& ADPrompt& \bfunderline{54.94} & \bfsize{0.43} & 1.46 & \bfsize{65.17} & \bfsize{1.55} & \bfsize{1.23} & \bfsize{70.52} & \bfunderline{1.71} & \bfsize{0.88} & \bfsize{70.68} & \bfsize{1.30} & 2.39 \\
\specialrule{3pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\end{tabular}
}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{llccc}
\specialrule{1.3pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30} \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{Prompt Method} & \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{GraphSage} & GPF & 63.29 & 3.05 & 3.97 \\
& GPF+ & 65.55 & 2.30 & 4.13 \\
& FPrompt & 64.63 & 3.13 & 3.40 \\
& ADPrompt & \textbf{66.67} & \textbf{1.74} & \textbf{2.44} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{GAT} & GPF & 57.48 & 2.39 & 2.97 \\
& GPF+ & 61.07 & 3.43 & 1.73 \\
& FPrompt & 56.47 & 2.17 & 4.30 \\
& ADPrompt & \textbf{62.67} & \textbf{1.74} & \textbf{1.70} \\
\specialrule{1.3pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Comparison of various methods under different backbone models with InfoMax pre-training strategy on the Credit dataset.}
\begin{tabular}{lllccc}
\specialrule{1.5pt}{0pt}{0.3pt}
\rowcolor{lightgray!30} \textbf{Pre-training} & \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{ACC (↑)} & \textbf{$\Delta$EO (↓)} & \textbf{$\Delta$SP (↓)} \\
\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{1pt}

% ----------- InfoMax -----------
\multirow{12}{*}{InfoMax} 
    & \multirow{3}{*}{Credit} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{58.14} & \textbf{1.08} & \textbf{1.48} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 56.48 & 2.68 & 2.25 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 55.92 & 2.14 & 2.64 \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
    & \multirow{3}{*}{German} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{64.33} & \textbf{1.18} & \textbf{1.32} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 62.89 & 2.53 & 3.27 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 59.24 & 2.66 & 5.75 \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
    & \multirow{3}{*}{Pokec\_n} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{69.89} & \textbf{0.22} & \textbf{1.44} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 67.86 & 1.06 & 1.16 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 62.72 & 5.11 & 3.23 \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
    & \multirow{3}{*}{Pokec\_z} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{70.48} & \textbf{0.92} & \textbf{0.70} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 65.28 & 4.38 & 2.15 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 67.74 & 6.56 & 5.59 \\

\specialrule{1pt}{0pt}{1pt}

% ----------- GAE -----------
\multirow{12}{*}{GAE} 
    & \multirow{3}{*}{Credit} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{64.86} & \textbf{1.37} & \textbf{1.28} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 58.48 & 5.69 & 5.13 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 54.68 & 1.56 & 1.43 \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
    & \multirow{3}{*}{German} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{62.17} & \textbf{2.22} & \textbf{2.32} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 59.25 & 5.70 & 3.78 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 54.68 & 5.48 & 2.59 \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
    & \multirow{3}{*}{Pokec\_n} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{73.89} & \textbf{0.22} & \textbf{1.44} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 58.48 & 3.02 & 3.15 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 54.68 & 3.76 & 2.32 \\
\cmidrule{2-6}
    & \multirow{3}{*}{Pokec\_z} 
        & ADPrompt & \textbf{75.09} & \textbf{1.25} & \textbf{0.84} \\
    &   & ADPrompt (first layer)  & 70.32 & 2.28 & 1.96 \\
    &   & ADPrompt (second layer) & 73.56 & 3.42 & 1.04 \\

\specialrule{1.5pt}{0pt}{0pt}
\end{tabular}

\begin{thebibliography}{63}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
  \providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
  \providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi

\bibitem[Bartlett et~al.(2017)Bartlett, Foster, and Telgarsky]{bartlett2017spectrally}
Peter~L Bartlett, Dylan~J Foster, and Matus~J Telgarsky.
\newblock Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networks.
\newblock \emph{Advances in neural information processing systems}, 30, 2017.

\bibitem[Chatzianastasis et~al.(2023)Chatzianastasis, Vazirgiannis, and Zhang]{chatzianastasis2023explainable}
Michail Chatzianastasis, Michalis Vazirgiannis, and Zijun Zhang.
\newblock Explainable multilayer graph neural network for cancer gene prediction.
\newblock \emph{Bioinformatics}, 2023.

\bibitem[Chen et~al.(2024)Chen, Rossi, Park, Trivedi, Wang, Yu, Kim, Dernoncourt, and Ahmed]{chen2024fairness}
April Chen, Ryan~A Rossi, Namyong Park, Puja Trivedi, Yu~Wang, Tong Yu, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, and Nesreen~K Ahmed.
\newblock Fairness-aware graph neural networks: A survey.
\newblock \emph{ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data}, 18\penalty0 (6):\penalty0 1--23, 2024.

\bibitem[Chen et~al.(2020{\natexlab{a}})Chen, Wei, Huang, Ding, and Li]{chen2020simple}
Ming Chen, Zhewei Wei, Zengfeng Huang, Bolin Ding, and Yaliang Li.
\newblock Simple and deep graph convolutional networks.
\newblock In \emph{International conference on machine learning}, 2020{\natexlab{a}}.

\bibitem[Chen et~al.(2020{\natexlab{b}})Chen, Wu, and Zaki]{chen2020iterative}
Yu~Chen, Lingfei Wu, and Mohammed Zaki.
\newblock Iterative deep graph learning for graph neural networks: Better and robust node embeddings.
\newblock \emph{Advances in neural information processing systems}, 33:\penalty0 19314--19326, 2020{\natexlab{b}}.

\bibitem[Dai \& Wang(2021)Dai and Wang]{dai2021fairgnn}
Enyan Dai and Suhang Wang.
\newblock Say no to the discrimination: Learning fair graph neural networks with limited sensitive attribute information.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining}, pp.\  680--688, 2021.

\bibitem[Ding et~al.(2023)Ding, Qin, Yang, Wei, Yang, Su, Hu, Chen, Chan, Chen, et~al.]{ding2023parameter}
Ning Ding, Yujia Qin, Guang Yang, Fuchao Wei, Zonghan Yang, Yusheng Su, Shengding Hu, Yulin Chen, Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, et~al.
\newblock Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large-scale pre-trained language models.
\newblock \emph{Nature machine intelligence}, 5\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 220--235, 2023.

\bibitem[Dong et~al.(2022)Dong, Liu, Jalaian, and Li]{dong2022edits}
Yushun Dong, Ninghao Liu, Brian Jalaian, and Jundong Li.
\newblock Edits: Modeling and mitigating data bias for graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022}, pp.\  1259--1269, 2022.

\bibitem[Dong et~al.(2023)Dong, Ma, Wang, Chen, and Li]{dong2023fairness}
Yushun Dong, Jing Ma, Song Wang, Chen Chen, and Jundong Li.
\newblock Fairness in graph mining: A survey.
\newblock \emph{IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering}, 35\penalty0 (10):\penalty0 10583--10602, 2023.

\bibitem[Dua \& Graff(2017)Dua and Graff]{Dua:2017}
Dheeru Dua and Casey Graff.
\newblock {UCI} machine learning repository.
\newblock http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/index.php, 2017.
\newblock Accessed: [Insert date, e.g., 2023-10-27].

\bibitem[Duan et~al.(2024)Duan, Liu, Chen, Chen, and Wu]{duan2024g}
Yutai Duan, Jie Liu, Shaowei Chen, Liyi Chen, and Jianhua Wu.
\newblock G-prompt: Graphon-based prompt tuning for graph classification.
\newblock \emph{Information Processing \& Management}, 61\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 103639, 2024.

\bibitem[Fang et~al.(2023)Fang, Zhang, Yang, Wang, and Chen]{fang2023universal}
Taoran Fang, Yunchao Zhang, Yang Yang, Chunping Wang, and Lei Chen.
\newblock Universal prompt tuning for graph neural networks.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 36:\penalty0 52464--52489, 2023.

\bibitem[Franceschi et~al.(2019)Franceschi, Niepert, Pontil, and He]{franceschi2019learning}
Luca Franceschi, Mathias Niepert, Massimiliano Pontil, and Xiao He.
\newblock Learning discrete structures for graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{International conference on machine learning}, pp.\  1972--1982. PMLR, 2019.

\bibitem[Franco et~al.(2024)Franco, D’Amato, Pasa, Navarin, and Oneto]{franco2024fair}
Danilo Franco, Vincenzo~Stefano D’Amato, Luca Pasa, Nicolo Navarin, and Luca Oneto.
\newblock Fair graph representation learning: Empowering nifty via biased edge dropout and fair attribute preprocessing.
\newblock \emph{Neurocomputing}, 563:\penalty0 126948, 2024.

\bibitem[Gong et~al.(2024)Gong, Li, Yu, Cheng, Tan, and Yu]{gong2024self}
Chenghua Gong, Xiang Li, Jianxiang Yu, Yao Cheng, Jiaqi Tan, and Chengcheng Yu.
\newblock Self-pro: A self-prompt and tuning framework for graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases}, pp.\  197--215. Springer, 2024.

\bibitem[Hamilton et~al.(2017{\natexlab{a}})Hamilton, Ying, and Leskovec]{hamilton2017graphsage}
Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec.
\newblock Inductive representation learning on large graphs.
\newblock In \emph{Advances in neural information processing systems}, 2017{\natexlab{a}}.

\bibitem[Hamilton et~al.(2017{\natexlab{b}})Hamilton, Ying, and Leskovec]{hamilton2017inductive}
Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec.
\newblock Inductive representation learning on large graphs.
\newblock \emph{Advances in neural information processing systems}, 30, 2017{\natexlab{b}}.

\bibitem[Hu et~al.(2018)Hu, Shen, and Sun]{hu2018senet}
Jie Hu, Li~Shen, and Gang Sun.
\newblock Squeeze-and-excitation networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition}, 2018.

\bibitem[Hu et~al.(2020)Hu, Liu, Gomes, Zitnik, Liang, Pande, and Leskovec]{hu2020strategies}
Weihua Hu, Bowen Liu, Joseph Gomes, Marinka Zitnik, Percy Liang, Vijay Pande, and Jure Leskovec.
\newblock Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)}, 2020.

\bibitem[Huang et~al.(2022)Huang, Liu, Ao, Li, Chi, Feng, Yang, and He]{huang2022auc}
Mengda Huang, Yang Liu, Xiang Ao, Kuan Li, Jianfeng Chi, Jinghua Feng, Hao Yang, and Qing He.
\newblock Auc-oriented graph neural network for fraud detection.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022}, 2022.

\bibitem[Huang et~al.(2024)Huang, Xu, Jiang, Pan, Yang, Wang, and Yang]{huang2024measuring}
Renhong Huang, Jiarong Xu, Xin Jiang, Chenglu Pan, Zhiming Yang, Chunping Wang, and Yang Yang.
\newblock Measuring task similarity and its implication in fine-tuning graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, 2024.

\bibitem[Jia et~al.(2022)Jia, Tang, Chen, Cardie, Belongie, Hariharan, and Lim]{jia2022vpt}
Menglin Jia, Luming Tang, Bor-Chun Chen, Claire Cardie, Serge Belongie, Bharath Hariharan, and Ser-Nam Lim.
\newblock Visual prompt tuning.
\newblock In \emph{European Conference on Computer Vision}, 2022.

\bibitem[Jiang et~al.(2024)Jiang, Xiao, Cross, and Sun]{jiang2024graphcare}
Pengcheng Jiang, Cao Xiao, Adam~Richard Cross, and Jimeng Sun.
\newblock Graphcare: Enhancing healthcare predictions with personalized knowledge graphs.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2024.

\bibitem[Jin et~al.(2020)Jin, Ma, Liu, Tang, Wang, and Tang]{jin2020graph}
Wei Jin, Yao Ma, Xiaorui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, Suhang Wang, and Jiliang Tang.
\newblock Graph structure learning for robust graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery \& data mining}, pp.\  66--74, 2020.

\bibitem[Khattak et~al.(2023)Khattak, Rasheed, Maaz, Khan, and Khan]{khattak2023maple}
Muhammad~Uzair Khattak, Hanoona Rasheed, Muhammad Maaz, Salman Khan, and Fahad~Shahbaz Khan.
\newblock Maple: Multi-modal prompt learning.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition}, pp.\  19113--19122, 2023.

\bibitem[Kipf \& Welling(2016)Kipf and Welling]{kipf2016variational}
Thomas~N Kipf and Max Welling.
\newblock Variational graph auto-encoders.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308}, 2016.

\bibitem[Kipf \& Welling(2017)Kipf and Welling]{kipf2017gcn}
Thomas~N Kipf and Max Welling.
\newblock Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2017.

\bibitem[Kose \& Shen(2024)Kose and Shen]{kose2024fairgat}
O~Deniz Kose and Yanning Shen.
\newblock Fairgat: Fairness-aware graph attention networks.
\newblock \emph{ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data}, 18\penalty0 (7):\penalty0 1--20, 2024.

\bibitem[Li \& Liang(2021)Li and Liang]{li2021prefix}
Xiang~Lisa Li and Percy Liang.
\newblock Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190}, 2021.

\bibitem[Li et~al.(2025)Li, Lin, Wang, and Wang]{li2025fairness}
Zhengpin Li, Minhua Lin, Jian Wang, and Suhang Wang.
\newblock Fairness-aware prompt tuning for graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025}, pp.\  3586--3597, 2025.

\bibitem[Liu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Liu, Yu, Fang, and Zhang]{liu2023graphprompt}
Zemin Liu, Xingtong Yu, Yuan Fang, and Xinming Zhang.
\newblock Graphprompt: Unifying pre-training and downstream tasks for graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023}, 2023{\natexlab{a}}.

\bibitem[Liu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Liu, Zhang, Ding, Wang, Shen, and Liu]{liu2023survey}
Zihan Liu, Yaqing Zhang, Kaize Ding, Dawei Wang, Yelong Shen, and Jundong Liu.
\newblock A survey on prompt learning in natural language processing, computer vision, and graph learning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08098}, 2023{\natexlab{b}}.

\bibitem[Loveland et~al.(2022)Loveland, Pan, Bhathena, and Lu]{loveland2022fairedit}
Donald Loveland, Jiayi Pan, Aaresh~Farrokh Bhathena, and Yiyang Lu.
\newblock Fairedit: Preserving fairness in graph neural networks through greedy graph editing.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03681}, 2022.

\bibitem[Ma et~al.(2022)Ma, Guo, Wan, Yang, Zhang, and Li]{ma2022learning}
Jing Ma, Ruocheng Guo, Mengting Wan, Longqi Yang, Aidong Zhang, and Jundong Li.
\newblock Learning fair node representations with graph counterfactual fairness.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining}, pp.\  695--703, 2022.

\bibitem[Moyer et~al.(2018)Moyer, Gao, Brekelmans, Galstyan, and Ver~Steeg]{moyer2018invariant}
Daniel Moyer, Shuyang Gao, Rob Brekelmans, Aram Galstyan, and Greg Ver~Steeg.
\newblock Invariant representations without adversarial training.
\newblock \emph{Advances in neural information processing systems}, 31, 2018.

\bibitem[Oono \& Suzuki(2019)Oono and Suzuki]{oono2019graph}
Kenta Oono and Taiji Suzuki.
\newblock Graph neural networks exponentially lose expressive power for node classification.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10947}, 2019.

\bibitem[Rockafellar \& Wets(1998)Rockafellar and Wets]{rockafellar1998variational}
R~Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger~JB Wets.
\newblock \emph{Variational analysis}.
\newblock Springer, 1998.

\bibitem[Rossi et~al.(2020)Rossi, Chamberlain, Frasca, Eynard, Monti, and Bronstein]{rossi2020tgn}
Emanuele Rossi, Ben Chamberlain, Fabrizio Frasca, Davide Eynard, Federico Monti, and Michael Bronstein.
\newblock Temporal graph networks for deep learning on dynamic graphs.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10637}, 2020.

\bibitem[Spinelli et~al.(2021)Spinelli, Scardapane, Hussain, and Uncini]{spinelli2021fairdrop}
Indro Spinelli, Simone Scardapane, Amir Hussain, and Aurelio Uncini.
\newblock Fairdrop: Biased edge dropout for enhancing fairness in graph representation learning.
\newblock \emph{IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence}, 3\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 344--354, 2021.

\bibitem[Srivastava et~al.(2015)Srivastava, Greff, and Schmidhuber]{srivastava2015highway}
Rupesh~Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and J{\"u}rgen Schmidhuber.
\newblock Highway networks.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00387}, 2015.

\bibitem[Sun et~al.(2022)Sun, Zhou, He, Wang, and Wang]{sun2022gppt}
Mingchen Sun, Kaixiong Zhou, Xin He, Ying Wang, and Xin Wang.
\newblock Gppt: Graph pre-training and prompt tuning to generalize graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}, 2022.

\bibitem[Sun et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Sun, Cheng, Li, Liu, and Guan]{sun2023all}
Xiangguo Sun, Hong Cheng, Jia Li, Bo~Liu, and Jihong Guan.
\newblock All in one: Multi-task prompting for graph neural networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}, 2023{\natexlab{a}}.

\bibitem[Sun et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Sun, Zhang, Wu, Cheng, Xiong, and Li]{sun2023survey}
Xiangguo Sun, Jiawen Zhang, Xixi Wu, Hong Cheng, Yun Xiong, and Jia Li.
\newblock Graph prompt learning: A comprehensive survey and beyond.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16534}, 2023{\natexlab{b}}.

\bibitem[Sun et~al.(2024)Sun, Zhu, Yang, Wang, Fan, Zhu, and Chen]{sun2024fine}
Yifei Sun, Qi~Zhu, Yang Yang, Chunping Wang, Tianyu Fan, Jiajun Zhu, and Lei Chen.
\newblock Fine-tuning graph neural networks by preserving graph generative patterns.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, 2024.

\bibitem[Thakoor et~al.(2021)Thakoor, Tallec, Azar, Munos, Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, and Valko]{thakoor2021bootstrapped}
Shantanu Thakoor, Corentin Tallec, Mohammad~Gheshlaghi Azar, R{\'e}mi Munos, Petar Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, and Michal Valko.
\newblock Bootstrapped representation learning on graphs.
\newblock In \emph{ICLR 2021 workshop on geometrical and topological representation learning}, 2021.

\bibitem[Tishby et~al.(2000)Tishby, Pereira, and Bialek]{tishby2000information}
Naftali Tishby, Fernando~C Pereira, and William Bialek.
\newblock The information bottleneck method.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint physics/0004057}, 2000.

\bibitem[Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c} et~al.(2018{\natexlab{a}})Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, Cucurull, Casanova, Romero, Lio, and Bengio]{velivckovic2018gat}
Petar Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio.
\newblock Graph attention networks.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2018{\natexlab{a}}.

\bibitem[Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c} et~al.(2018{\natexlab{b}})Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, Fedus, Hamilton, Li{\`o}, Bengio, and Hjelm]{velivckovic2018deep}
Petar Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, William Fedus, William~L Hamilton, Pietro Li{\`o}, Yoshua Bengio, and R~Devon Hjelm.
\newblock Deep graph infomax.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10341}, 2018{\natexlab{b}}.

\bibitem[Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c} et~al.(2019)Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, Fedus, Hamilton, Li{\`o}, Bengio, and Hjelm]{velivckovic2019dgi}
Petar Veli{\v{c}}kovi{\'c}, William Fedus, William~L Hamilton, Pietro Li{\`o}, Yoshua Bengio, and R~Devon Hjelm.
\newblock Deep graph infomax.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2019.

\bibitem[Wang et~al.(2024)Wang, Deng, Lin, Li, and Ling]{wang2024novel}
Jingchao Wang, Zhengnan Deng, Tongxu Lin, Wenyuan Li, and Shaobin Ling.
\newblock A novel prompt tuning for graph transformers: Tailoring prompts to graph topologies.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}, pp.\  3116--3127, 2024.

\bibitem[Wo et~al.(2025)Wo, Liu, Wang, Shao, and Wang]{wo2025improving}
Zengyi Wo, Chang Liu, Yumeng Wang, Minglai Shao, and Wenjun Wang.
\newblock Improving fairness in graph neural networks via counterfactual debiasing.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14683}, 2025.

\bibitem[Wu et~al.(2020)Wu, Ren, Li, and Leskovec]{wu2020graph}
Tailin Wu, Hongyu Ren, Pan Li, and Jure Leskovec.
\newblock Graph information bottleneck.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 33:\penalty0 20437--20448, 2020.

\bibitem[Xu et~al.(2018)Xu, Hu, Leskovec, and Jegelka]{xu2018powerful}
Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka.
\newblock How powerful are graph neural networks?
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826}, 2018.

\bibitem[Xu et~al.(2019)Xu, Hu, Leskovec, and Jegelka]{xu2019gin}
Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka.
\newblock How powerful are graph neural networks?
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2019.

\bibitem[Yeh \& Lien(2009)Yeh and Lien]{yeh2009comparisons}
I-Cheng Yeh and Che-hui Lien.
\newblock The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients.
\newblock \emph{Expert systems with applications}, 36\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 2473--2480, 2009.

\bibitem[Yoo et~al.(2023)Yoo, Kim, Jung, Lee, and Yoon]{yoo2023improving}
Seungryong Yoo, Eunji Kim, Dahuin Jung, Jungbeom Lee, and Sungroh Yoon.
\newblock Improving visual prompt tuning for self-supervised vision transformers.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Machine Learning}, 2023.

\bibitem[You et~al.(2020)You, Chen, Sui, Chen, Wang, and Shen]{you2020graph}
Yuning You, Tianlong Chen, Yongduo Sui, Ting Chen, Zhangyang Wang, and Yang Shen.
\newblock Graph contrastive learning with augmentations.
\newblock \emph{Advances in neural information processing systems}, 33:\penalty0 5812--5823, 2020.

\bibitem[Yu et~al.(2024{\natexlab{a}})Yu, Fang, Liu, and Zhang]{yu2024hgprompt}
Xingtong Yu, Yuan Fang, Zemin Liu, and Xinming Zhang.
\newblock Hgprompt: Bridging homogeneous and heterogeneous graphs for few-shot prompt learning.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, 2024{\natexlab{a}}.

\bibitem[Yu et~al.(2024{\natexlab{b}})Yu, Liu, Fang, Liu, Chen, and Zhang]{yu2024generalized}
Xingtong Yu, Zhenghao Liu, Yuan Fang, Zemin Liu, Sihong Chen, and Xinming Zhang.
\newblock Generalized graph prompt: Toward a unification of pre-training and downstream tasks on graphs.
\newblock \emph{IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering}, 2024{\natexlab{b}}.

\bibitem[Zafar et~al.(2017)Zafar, Valera, Gomez~Rodriguez, and Gummadi]{zafar2017fairness}
Muhammad~Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez~Rodriguez, and Krishna~P Gummadi.
\newblock Fairness beyond disparate treatment \& disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web}, pp.\  1171--1180, 2017.

\bibitem[Zhili et~al.(2024)Zhili, Shimin, Lei, and Xiaofang]{zhili2024search}
WANG Zhili, DI~Shimin, CHEN Lei, and ZHOU Xiaofang.
\newblock Search to fine-tune pre-trained graph neural networks for graph-level tasks.
\newblock In \emph{2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)}, 2024.

\bibitem[Zhou et~al.(2022)Zhou, Yang, Loy, and Liu]{zhou2022coop}
Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen~Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu.
\newblock Learning to prompt for vision-language models.
\newblock \emph{International Journal of Computer Vision}, 2022.

\bibitem[Zhu et~al.(2020)Zhu, Xu, Yu, Liu, Wu, and Wang]{zhu2020deep}
Yanqiao Zhu, Yichen Xu, Feng Yu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang.
\newblock Deep graph contrastive representation learning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04131}, 2020.

\end{thebibliography}