Deep Graph Contrastive Representation Learning

Yanqiao Zhu, Yichen Xu, Feng Yu, Q. Liu, Shu Wu, Liang Wang

Main figure for Deep Graph Contrastive Representation Learning

Abstract

Graph representation learning nowadays becomes fundamental in analyzing graph-structured data. Inspired by recent success of contrastive methods, in this paper, we propose a novel framework for unsupervised graph representation learning by leveraging a contrastive objective at the node level. Specifically, we generate two graph views by corruption and learn node representations by maximizing the agreement of node representations in these two views. To provide diverse node contexts for the contrastive objective, we propose a hybrid scheme for generating graph views on both structure and attribute levels. Besides, we provide theoretical justification behind our motivation from two perspectives, mutual information and the classical triplet loss. We perform empirical experiments on both transductive and inductive learning tasks using a variety of real-world datasets. Experimental experiments demonstrate that despite its simplicity, our proposed method consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods by large margins. Moreover, our unsupervised method even surpasses its supervised counterparts on transductive tasks, demonstrating its great potential in real-world applications.

Proposed method: GRACE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
0.9660
44
GaAN-mean
0.9580 ±0.0010
This paper
53
GraphSAGE-LSTM
actual #53 vs paper #116 63 places worse
0.9540
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #116 63 places worse
paper 0.9070
paper 0.9070 Δ at pub 0.0470
68
GRACE
actual #68 vs paper #79 11 places worse
0.9501 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #79 11 places worse
paper 0.9420
69
GraphSAGE-mean
actual #69 vs paper #117 48 places worse
0.9500
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #117 48 places worse
paper 0.8970
paper 0.8970 Δ at pub 0.0530
76
GraphSAGE-pool
actual #76 vs paper #118 42 places worse
0.9480
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #118 42 places worse
paper 0.8920
paper 0.8920 Δ at pub 0.0560
82
DGI
actual #82 vs paper #84 2 places worse
0.9414 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #84 2 places worse
paper 0.9400 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9400 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0014
91
FastGCN
0.9370
This paper
107
GraphSAGE-GCN
actual #107 vs paper #115 8 places worse
0.9300
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #115 8 places worse
paper 0.9080
paper 0.9080 Δ at pub 0.0220
127
DeepWalk + features
0.6910
This paper
132
Raw features
0.5850
This paper
143
DeepWalk
0.3240
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
21
GCN
0.9850
68
GaAN-mean
0.9690 ±0.0020
This paper
126
GRACE
actual #126 vs paper #138 12 places worse
0.6971 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #138 12 places worse
paper 0.6620 ±0.0010
paper 0.6620 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0351
148
DGI
0.6380 ±0.0020
This paper
154
GraphSAGE-LSTM
actual #154 vs paper #168 14 places worse
0.6120
best reported
actual #154 vs paper #168 14 places worse
paper 0.4820
paper 0.4820 Δ at pub 0.1300 Δ today 0.1300
157
GraphSAGE-pool
actual #157 vs paper #167 10 places worse
0.6020
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #167 10 places worse
paper 0.5020
158
GraphSAGE-GCN
actual #158 vs paper #171 13 places worse
0.6010
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #171 13 places worse
paper 0.4650
159
GraphSAGE-mean
actual #159 vs paper #167 8 places worse
0.5980
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #167 8 places worse
paper 0.4860
paper 0.4860 Δ at pub 0.1120 Δ today 0.1120
173
MLP
0.4620
176
Raw features
actual #176 vs paper #177 1 place worse
0.4250 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #176 vs paper #177 1 place worse
paper 0.4220

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4220 Δ today 0.0030

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is Micro-F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HG-SCM
0.9490 ±0.0015
2
SeHGNN
0.9489 ±0.0018
3
AdvSynGNN
0.9486 ±0.0012
11
GAE
actual #11 vs paper #64 53 places worse
0.9410 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #64 53 places worse
paper 0.8120
paper 0.8120 Δ today 0.1290
34
DGI
actual #34 vs paper #55 21 places worse
0.8800 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #55 21 places worse
paper 0.8320 ±0.0010
paper 0.8320 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0480
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #55 19 places worse
0.8270
actual #36 vs paper #55 19 places worse
paper 0.8270
paper 0.8270 Δ at pub 0.1120 Δ today 0.0488
54
GRACE
0.8420 ±0.0010
This paper
62
VGAE
0.8170
This paper
61
SGC
actual #61 vs paper #61
0.8170
actual #61 vs paper #61
paper 0.8170
paper 0.8170 Δ at pub 0.1250
65
MLP
0.8118 ±0.0020
79
Node2Vec
0.7880
This paper
81
DeepWalk + features
0.7810
This paper
93
DeepWalk
0.7590
This paper
105
GraphSAGE
0.7455 ±0.0061
113
Raw features
0.7160
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere