WWW 2020

Graph Representation Learning via Graphical Mutual Information Maximization

Zhen Peng, Wenbing Huang, M. Luo, Q. Zheng, Yu Rong, Tingyang Xu, Junzhou Huang

Main figure for Graph Representation Learning via Graphical Mutual Information Maximization

Abstract

The richness in the content of various information networks such as social networks and communication networks provides the unprecedented potential for learning high-quality expressive representations without external supervision. This paper investigates how to preserve and extract the abundant information from graph-structured data into embedding space in an unsupervised manner. To this end, we propose a novel concept, Graphical Mutual Information (GMI), to measure the correlation between input graphs and high-level hidden representations. GMI generalizes the idea of conventional mutual information computations from vector space to the graph domain where measuring mutual information from two aspects of node features and topological structure is indispensable. GMI exhibits several benefits: First, it is invariant to the isomorphic transformation of input graphs---an inevitable constraint in many existing graph representation learning algorithms; Besides, it can be efficiently estimated and maximized by current mutual information estimation methods such as MINE; Finally, our theoretical analysis confirms its correctness and rationality. With the aid of GMI, we develop an unsupervised learning model trained by maximizing GMI between the input and output of a graph neural encoder. Considerable experiments on transductive as well as inductive node classification and link prediction demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art unsupervised counterparts, and even sometimes exceeds the performance of supervised ones.

Proposed method: GMI-adaptive

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

Reddit

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is F1. The paper reports 0 values on F1 , 1 value on micro-averaged F1 (percent) and 4 values on F1-micro .

Sorted by micro-averaged F1 (percent). Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑ defaultmicro-averaged F1 (percent) ↑F1-micro ↑Paper
1
GMI-mean
—
—
0.9500 ± 0.0002
F1 —
F1-micro 0.9500 ± 0.0002
This paper
1
GMI-adaptive
—
0.9490 ± 0.0002
—
F1 —
F1-micro —
This paper
2
FMI
—
—
0.9470 ± 0.0003
F1 —
F1-micro 0.9470 ± 0.0003
This paper
2
DGI loss
—
—
0.9430 ± 0.0002
F1 —
F1-micro 0.9430 ± 0.0002
This paper
2
EP-B loss
—
—
0.9380 ± 0.0003
F1 —
F1-micro 0.9380 ± 0.0003
This paper

PPI

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is F1. The paper reports 2 values on F1 and 3 values on micro-averaged F1 (percent) .

#ModelF1 ↑ defaultmicro-averaged F1 (percent) ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ± 0.0001
—
micro-averaged F1 (percent) —
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
—
micro-averaged F1 (percent) —
3
GCNII
0.9953 ± 0.0001
—
21
GCN
0.9850
—
micro-averaged F1 (percent) —
143
GMI-mean
0.6500 ± 0.0200
—
micro-averaged F1 (percent) —
This paper
145
FMI
—
0.6480 ± 0.0003
micro-averaged F1 (percent) 0.6480 ± 0.0003
This paper
145
GMI-adaptive
0.6460 ± 0.0300
—
micro-averaged F1 (percent) —
This paper
152
DGI loss
—
0.6230 ± 0.0002
micro-averaged F1 (percent) 0.6230 ± 0.0002
This paper
154
EP-B loss
—
0.6180 ± 0.0004
micro-averaged F1 (percent) 0.6180 ± 0.0004
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
—
micro-averaged F1 (percent) —
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)