On the Token Collapse Phenomenon in Textual Graph Soft Prompting
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
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
- Verbalizing Multi-Token Concepts in LLMs (2026)
- FuseRAG: Fusing Structure and Evidence into Inference for Cost-Efficient Graph-based RAG (2026)
- Can LLMs Use Relational Transformer Embeddings? (2026)
- Graph Evidence Is Not Enough: Diagnosing Native Decoder Use in Graph-Augmented LLMs (2026)
- MWOP: Modality-aware Width-wise Operation Pruning for Efficient MLLMs (2026)
- TemporalGraphLLM: Temporal Graph Neural Networks with Large Language Models for Dynamic Text-Attributed Graphs (2026)
- Task-Specific Prompt with Global Context for Multi-Task Graph Pre-Training (2026)
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
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
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper