IJCAI 2020

Rethinking the Promotion Brought by Contrastive Learning to Semi-Supervised Node Classification

Deli Chen, Yankai Lin, Lei Li, Xuancheng Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Xu Sun

Main figure for Rethinking the Promotion Brought by Contrastive Learning to Semi-Supervised Node Classification

Abstract

Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has proven highly effective in promoting the performance of Semi-Supervised Node Classification (SSNC). However, existing GCL methods are generally transferred from other fields like CV or NLP, whose underlying working mechanism remains under-explored. In this work, we first deeply probe the working mechanism of GCL in SSNC, and find that the promotion brought by GCL is severely unevenly distributed: the improvement mainly comes from subgraphs with less annotated information, which is fundamentally different from contrastive learning in other fields. However, existing GCL methods generally ignore this uneven distribution of annotated information and apply GCL evenly to the whole graph. To remedy this issue and further improve GCL in SSNC, we propose the Topology InFormation gain-Aware Graph Contrastive Learning (TIFA-GCL) framework that considers the annotated information distribution across graph in GCL. Extensive experiments on six benchmark graph datasets, including the enormous OGB-Products graph, show that TIFA-GCL can bring a larger improvement than existing GCL methods in both transductive and inductive settings. Further experiments demonstrate the generalizability and interpretability of TIFA-GCL.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 9 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #606 585 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #606 585 places worse
paper 0.8100 ±0.0070
paper 0.8100 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0617 Δ today 0.0904
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #660 616 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #660 616 places worse
paper 0.7990 ±0.0210
paper 0.7990 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0900 Δ today 0.0907
134
GRACE
actual #134 vs paper #517 383 places worse
0.8210 ±0.0160
actual #134 vs paper #517 383 places worse
paper 0.8210 ±0.0160

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8210 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0210 Δ today 0.0510
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #624 483 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #624 483 places worse
paper 0.8070 ±0.0120
278
GraphCL
actual #278 vs paper #472 194 places worse
0.8428 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #278 vs paper #472 194 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0110
paper 0.8240 ±0.0110 Δ today 0.0188
307
GraphMix
actual #307 vs paper #573 266 places worse
0.8394 ±0.0057
best reported
actual #307 vs paper #573 266 places worse
paper 0.8150 ±0.0090
paper 0.8150 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0244
353
TIFA-GCL
0.8360 ±0.0080
This paper
451
NodeAug
0.8270 ±0.0130
This paper
555
MultiView
0.8180 ±0.0080
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #634 599 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #634 599 places worse
paper 0.6960 ±0.0140
paper 0.6960 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0900 Δ today 0.1120
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #648 604 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #648 604 places worse
paper 0.6910 ±0.0080
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #694 633 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #694 633 places worse
paper 0.6780 ±0.0140
paper 0.6780 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0750 Δ today 0.1143
191
GraphMix
actual #191 vs paper #642 451 places worse
0.7470 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #642 451 places worse
paper 0.6930 ±0.0040
paper 0.6930 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0451 Δ today 0.0540
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #603 402 places worse
0.7450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #603 402 places worse
paper 0.7030 ±0.0150
259
SAGE
0.7361 ±0.0190
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
395
GraphCL
actual #395 vs paper #570 175 places worse
0.7250 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #395 vs paper #570 175 places worse
paper 0.7080 ±0.0060
paper 0.7080 ±0.0060 Δ today 0.0170
396
TIFA-GCL
0.7250 ±0.0060
This paper
509
MultiView
0.7150 ±0.0170
This paper
553
NodeAug
0.7110 ±0.0120
This paper
#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 #745 727 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #745 727 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0080
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #726 706 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #726 706 places worse
paper 0.7720 ±0.0100
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #761 636 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #761 636 places worse
paper 0.7630 ±0.0060
paper 0.7630 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1080 Δ today 0.1234
194
GRACE
actual #194 vs paper #694 500 places worse
0.8730 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #194 vs paper #694 500 places worse
paper 0.7780 ±0.0180
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
331
GraphCL
actual #331 vs paper #661 330 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #331 vs paper #661 330 places worse
paper 0.7820 ±0.0050
paper 0.7820 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0376
367
GraphMix
actual #367 vs paper #675 308 places worse
0.8110 ±0.0078
best reported
actual #367 vs paper #675 308 places worse
paper 0.7800 ±0.0130
paper 0.7800 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0310
560
TIFA-GCL
0.7920 ±0.0060
This paper
649
NodeAug
0.7840 ±0.0070
This paper
688
MultiView
0.7790 ±0.0010
This paper

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
87
GAT (SAINT-TIFA, TIFA-GCL)
0.8250 ±0.0050
This paper
132
GraphSAGE (SAINT-TIFA, TIFA-GCL)
0.8070 ±0.0030
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #369 18 places worse
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #369 18 places worse
paper 0.6110 ±0.0010
paper 0.6110 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.1924 Δ today 0.0495
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere