ICML 2020

When Does Self-Supervision Help Graph Convolutional Networks?

Yuning You, Tianlong Chen, Zhangyang Wang, Yang Shen

Main figure for 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

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #574 556 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #574 556 places worse
paper 0.7910 ±0.0021
paper 0.7910 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0040 Δ today 0.1386
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #673 653 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #673 653 places worse
paper 0.7805 ±0.0046
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
157
GIN
actual #157 vs paper #721 564 places worse
0.7738 ±0.0059
actual #157 vs paper #721 564 places worse
paper 0.7738 ±0.0059

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7738 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0028 Δ today 0.1072
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
340
GMNN
actual #340 vs paper #353 13 places worse
0.8163 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #340 vs paper #353 13 places worse
paper 0.8134 ±0.0059

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8134 ±0.0059 Δ today 0.0029
353
GraphMix+Par
0.8136 ±0.0033
This paper
355
GMNN+Comp
0.8133 ±0.0059
This paper
367
GraphMix
actual #367 vs paper #398 31 places worse
0.8110 ±0.0078
best reported
actual #367 vs paper #398 31 places worse
paper 0.8068 ±0.0057

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8068 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0042
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
actual #510 vs paper #551 41 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0076
best reported
actual #510 vs paper #551 41 places worse
paper 0.7928 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7928 ±0.0030 Δ today 0.0022
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
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere