When Does Self-Supervision Help Graph Convolutional Networks?
Abstract
Self-supervision as an emerging technique has been employed to train convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for more transferrable, generalizable, and robust representation learning of images. Its introduction to graph convolutional networks (GCNs) operating on graph data is however rarely explored. In this study, we report the first systematic exploration and assessment of incorporating self-supervision into GCNs. We first elaborate three mechanisms to incorporate self-supervision into GCNs, analyze the limitations of pretraining & finetuning and self-training, and proceed to focus on multi-task learning. Moreover, we propose to investigate three novel self-supervised learning tasks for GCNs with theoretical rationales and numerical comparisons. Lastly, we further integrate multi-task self-supervision into graph adversarial training. Our results show that, with properly designed task forms and incorporation mechanisms, self-supervision benefits GCNs in gaining more generalizability and robustness. Our codes are available at https://github.com/Shen-Lab/SS-GCNs.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (AAAI 2019) |
| 20 | GAT | 0.9233
±0.0018 best reported | |
| 116 | SAGE | 0.8881
±0.0015 | |
| 157 | GIN | 0.7738
±0.0059 | prev best: Graph Neural Networks With Convolutional ARMA Filters (2019) best today: UGSL: A Unified Framework for Benchmarking Graph Structure Learning (2023) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 340 | GMNN | 0.8163
±0.0036 best reported | best today: Rethinking Graph Regularization for Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2020) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 353 | GraphMix+Par | 0.8136
±0.0033 | This paper |
| 355 | GMNN+Comp | 0.8133
±0.0059 | This paper |
| 367 | GraphMix | 0.8110
±0.0078 best reported | best at pub: GraphMix: Improved Training of GNNs for Semi-Supervised Learning (2019) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 378 | GMNN+Par | 0.8092
±0.0077 | This paper |
| 383 | GraphMix+Comp | 0.8082
±0.0054 | This paper |
| 427 | GIN+Par | 0.8028
±0.0134 | This paper |
| 438 | GAT+Par | 0.8011
±0.0034 | This paper |
| 452 | MTL-Par | 0.8000
±0.0074 | This paper |
| 453 | GCN+Par | 0.8000
±0.0074 | This paper |
| 457 | GraphMix+Clu | 0.7999
±0.0082 | This paper |
| 510 | M3S | 0.7950
±0.0076 best reported | best today: Self-supervised Learning on Graphs: Deep Insights and New Directions (2020) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 522 | GMNN+Clu | 0.7945
±0.0076 | This paper |
| 565 | P&F-Clu | 0.7920
±0.0022 | This paper |
| 569 | P&F-Par | 0.7919
±0.0021 | This paper |
| 570 | P&F-Comp | 0.7919
±0.0039 | This paper |
| 572 | MTL-Comp | 0.7914
±0.0028 | This paper |
| 573 | GCN+Comp | 0.7914
±0.0028 | This paper |
| 621 | MTL-Clu | 0.7879
±0.0036 | This paper |
| 622 | GCN+Clu | 0.7879
±0.0036 | This paper |
| 626 | GIN + CAMP | 0.7870
±0.0069 | This paper |
| 696 | GAT+Clu | 0.7780
±0.0028 | This paper |
| 736 | GAT+Comp | 0.7710
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 750 | GIN+Clu | 0.7671
±0.0036 | This paper |
