Papers
arxiv:2610.31572

On the Token Collapse Phenomenon in Textual Graph Soft Prompting

Published on Oct 22
· Submitted by
Andrea Giuseppe Di Francesco
on Oct 26
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Graph soft prompting in LLMs suffers from token collapse, where learned graph tokens become indistinguishable and function as generic prompts rather than conveying relational structure, prompting evaluation via alignment probes rather than accuracy alone.

Recent methods for injecting graph structure into LLM prompts include graph soft prompting, in which a graph neural network (GNN) learns graph-specific tokens that capture relational information among entities in textual prompts. G-Retriever combines graph soft prompts with a verbalized description of the same graph to strengthen the textual prompt signal. We conduct an in-depth analysis of G-Retriever and uncover a pathological behavior we term token collapse. Across three benchmarks, three graph encoders, two LLM families, and both frozen and LoRA-adapted models, G-Retriever's graph tokens become almost indistinguishable across inputs. We provide evidence that the same failure is inherited by subsequent methods, even with multi-token pooling. Under the standard setup, swapping a token with the dataset mean, a token from another example, or one derived from a corrupted graph produces no resolved answer-level effect in accuracy. Moreover, a learned constant prompt that never accesses the graph matches or surpasses G-Retriever on all three benchmarks. These findings indicate that, rather than conveying graph content as intended, the collapsed token functions primarily as a generic soft prompt. We also examine conditions linked to this collapse and propose a two-stage procedure that yields non-collapsed tokens while maintaining competitive performance in most cases. However, token variability alone does not prove that the model uses graph information: via interventions and decoding probes, we show that depending on the configuration, a token can reflect the question, an answer prior, or graph-derived content that the LLM may or may not use. Overall, our results offer a practical approach to evaluating graph-token alignment rather than inferring it from task accuracy alone. Code to reproduce our experiments is available at https://github.com/difra100/Token_Collapse_KGQA.

Community

Paper submitter

Graph soft prompting methods such as G-Retriever give an LLM a GNN-derived "graph token" alongside a verbalised version of the same graph. Contrary to what was previously believed, the graph token does not carry graph information; specifically, we find that this token collapses across 3 benchmarks, 3 graph encoders, 2 LLM families, and frozen and LoRA-adapted models. In other words, graph tokens are almost identical across inputs (inter-sample cosine 0.985–0.998). The same failure appears in later single- and multi-token graph-prompting methods.

Replacing the token with the dataset mean, another example's token, or one computed from a different graph has no resolved effect on accuracy. A learned constant that never sees the graph matches or surpasses G-Retriever on all three benchmarks. The collapsed token works primarily as a soft prompt, and the verbalised graph is the main channel for graph information.

We associate collapse with the Sigmoid projector and end-to-end answer training. We then propose a two-stage pipeline that yields non-collapsed tokens while keeping performance competitive in most cases. But a distinct token is not necessarily a useful one: through interventions and decoding probes, we show that a token can encode the question, an answer prior, graph information the LLM ignores, or graph information that changes the answer. Our protocol tests graph–token alignment directly instead of inferring it from task accuracy.

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2610.31572
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.31572 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.31572 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.31572 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.