Contrastive and Generative Graph Convolutional Networks for Graph-based Semi-Supervised Learning
Abstract
Graph-based Semi-Supervised Learning (SSL) aims to transfer the labels of a handful of labeled data to the remaining massive unlabeled data via a graph. As one of the most popular graph-based SSL approaches, the recently proposed Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) have gained remarkable progress by combining the sound expressiveness of neural networks with graph structure. Nevertheless, the existing graph-based methods do not directly address the core problem of SSL, i.e., the shortage of supervision, and thus their performances are still very limited. To accommodate this issue, a novel GCN-based SSL algorithm is presented in this paper to enrich the supervision signals by utilizing both data similarities and graph structure. Firstly, by designing a semi-supervised contrastive loss, improved node representations can be generated via maximizing the agreement between different views of the same data or the data from the same class. Therefore, the rich unlabeled data and the scarce yet valuable labeled data can jointly provide abundant supervision information for learning discriminative node representations, which helps improve the subsequent classification result. Secondly, the underlying determinative relationship between the data features and input graph topology is extracted as supplementary supervision signals for SSL via using a graph generative loss related to the input features. Intensive experimental results on a variety of real-world datasets firmly verify the effectiveness of our algorithm compared with other state-of-the-art methods.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 | |
| 44 | GAT | 0.8897
±0.0014 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 134 | GRACE | 0.8720
±0.0020 best reported | best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 156 | MVGRL | 0.8680
±0.0050 best reported | best at pub: SAIL: Self-Augmented Graph Contrastive Learning (AAAI 2020) best today: Adaptive Negative Scheduling for Graph Contrastive Learning (2026) |
| 177 | DGI | 0.8630
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 218 | GMI | 0.8526
±0.0008 best reported | best at pub: SAIL: Self-Augmented Graph Contrastive Learning (AAAI 2020) |
| 223 | SGC | 0.8509
±0.0648 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 387 | CG^3 | 0.8340
±0.0070 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) best today: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 | |
| 66 | DGI | 0.7890
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 73 | GMI | 0.7869
±0.0016 best reported | best at pub: SAIL: Self-Augmented Graph Contrastive Learning (AAAI 2020) |
| 87 | MVGRL | 0.7260
±0.0070 | prev best: SAIL: Self-Augmented Graph Contrastive Learning (AAAI 2020) best today: Node Representation Learning in Graph via Node-to-Neighbourhood Mutual Information Maximization (2022) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 96 | SGC | 0.7765
±0.0012 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) |
| 201 | GRACE | 0.7450
±0.0010 best reported | best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 262 | CG^3 | 0.7360
±0.0080 | This paper |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 |
| # | 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 | |
| 20 | GAT | 0.9233
±0.0018 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 141 | SGC | 0.8832
±0.0055 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) |
| 194 | GRACE | 0.8730
±0.0010 best reported | best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 195 | GMI | 0.8726
±0.0016 best reported | best at pub: SAIL: Self-Augmented Graph Contrastive Learning (AAAI 2020) |
| 196 | MVGRL | 0.8725
±0.0012 best reported | best at pub: SAIL: Self-Augmented Graph Contrastive Learning (AAAI 2020) |
| 204 | DGI | 0.7730
±0.0060 | prev best: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) best today: Noise-Resilient Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning via Multi-Hop Feature Quality Estimation (2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 432 | CG^3 | 0.8020
±0.0080 | This paper |
