Sub-graph Contrast for Scalable Self-Supervised Graph Representation Learning

Yizhu Jiao, Yun Xiong, Jiawei Zhang, Yao Zhang, Tianqi Zhang, Yangyong Zhu

Main figure for Sub-graph Contrast for Scalable Self-Supervised Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

Graph representation learning has attracted lots of attention recently. Existing graph neural networks fed with the complete graph data are not scalable due to limited computation and memory costs. Thus, it remains a great challenge to capture rich information in large-scale graph data. Besides, these methods mainly focus on supervised learning and highly depend on node label information, which is expensive to obtain in the real world. As to unsupervised network embedding approaches, they overemphasize node proximity instead, whose learned representations can hardly be used in downstream application tasks directly. In recent years, emerging self-supervised learning provides a potential solution to address the aforementioned problems. However, existing self-supervised works also operate on the complete graph data and are biased to fit either global or very local (1-hop neighborhood) graph structures in defining the mutual information based loss terms. In this paper, a novel self-supervised representation learning method via raph trast, namely Subg-Con, is proposed by utilizing the strong correlation between central nodes and their sampled subgraphs to capture regional structure information. Instead of learning on the complete input graph data, with a novel data augmentation strategy, Subg-Con learns node representations through a contrastive loss defined based on subgraphs sampled from the original graph instead. Compared with existing graph representation learning approaches, Subg-Con has prominent performance advantages in weaker supervision requirements, model learning scalability, and parallelization. Extensive experiments verify both the effectiveness and the efficiency of our work compared with both classic and state-of-the-art graph representation learning approaches on multiple real-world large-scale benchmark datasets from different domains.

Proposed method: SubG-Con

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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
actual #14 vs paper #114 100 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #114 100 places worse
paper 0.9210 ±0.0110
58
GCN
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
0.9530 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
paper 0.9330 ±0.0010
paper 0.9330 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0200
62
SubG-Con
0.9520
This paper
70
GMI
0.9500
This paper
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
actual #91 vs paper #118 27 places worse
0.9370
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #118 27 places worse
paper 0.8950 ±0.0120
116
Unsup-GraphSAGE
0.9080 ±0.0110
This paper
132
Raw features
0.5850 ±0.0010
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
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9850
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060
best today: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.2930 Δ today 0.4700
57
GAT
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.9732 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.9730 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9730 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0002
92
GIN
0.8724 ±0.0002
101
GraphSAGE
actual #101 vs paper #165 64 places worse
0.7860
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #165 64 places worse
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.1870 Δ today 0.2730
137
SubG-Con
0.6690 ±0.0020
This paper
142
GMI
0.6500
This paper
148
DGI
0.6380 ±0.0020
This paper
149
FastGCN
actual #149 vs paper #149
0.6370 ±0.0060
actual #149 vs paper #149
paper 0.6370 ±0.0060
paper 0.6370 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1240
164
DeepWalk
0.5290
This paper
172
Unsup-GraphSAGE
0.4650 ±0.0070
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
176
Raw features
actual #176 vs paper #176
0.4250 ±0.0030
actual #176 vs paper #176
paper 0.4250 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4250 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0030
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere