Graph Self-Supervised Learning: A Survey

Yixin Liu, Shirui Pan, Ming Jin, Chuan Zhou, Feng Xia, Philip S. Yu

Main figure for Graph Self-Supervised Learning: A Survey

Abstract

Deep learning on graphs has attracted significant interests recently. However, most of the works have focused on (semi-) supervised learning, resulting in shortcomings including heavy label reliance, poor generalization, and weak robustness. To address these issues, self-supervised learning (SSL), which extracts informative knowledge through well-designed pretext tasks without relying on manual labels, has become a promising and trending learning paradigm for graph data. Different from SSL on other domains like computer vision and natural language processing, SSL on graphs has an exclusive background, design ideas, and taxonomies. Under the umbrella of graph self-supervised learning, we present a timely and comprehensive review of the existing approaches which employ SSL techniques for graph data. We construct a unified framework that mathematically formalizes the paradigm of graph SSL. According to the objectives of pretext tasks, we divide these approaches into four categories: generation-based, auxiliary property-based, contrast-based, and hybrid approaches. We further describe the applications of graph SSL across various research fields and summarize the commonly used datasets, evaluation benchmark, performance comparison and open-source codes of graph SSL. Finally, we discuss the remaining challenges and potential future directions in this research field.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

PPI

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Cluster-GCN
0.9936
2
GaAN
0.9871
3
GeniePath
0.9850
5
GAT
0.9730
This paper
7
GraphSAGE
actual #7 vs paper #26 19 places worse
0.9580 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #26 19 places worse
paper 0.5020
9
GIN
0.9110 ±0.0020
16
SuperGAT
0.7440
This paper
19
SubG-Con
0.6690
This paper
21
S^2GRL
0.6600
This paper
22
GraphCL(N)
0.6590
This paper
23
GMI
0.6500
This paper
24
DGI
0.6380
This paper

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8940
best at pub: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8940 Δ today 0.0390
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
77
HTC
0.9180
This paper
149
LCGNN
0.9050
This paper
178
AD-GCL
actual #178 vs paper #213 35 places worse
0.9028 ±0.0401
best reported
actual #178 vs paper #213 35 places worse
paper 0.8970

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8970 Δ today 0.0058
181
IGSD
0.9020
This paper
199
MVGRL
actual #199 vs paper #213 14 places worse
0.8993 ±0.0616
best reported
actual #199 vs paper #213 14 places worse
paper 0.8970

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8970 Δ today 0.0023
257
InfoGraph
actual #257 vs paper #272 15 places worse
0.8930 ±0.0514
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #272 15 places worse
paper 0.8900

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8900 Δ today 0.0030
351
JOAO
0.8770
This paper
397
GraphCL(G)
0.8680
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
30
GIN
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
paper 0.8020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8020 Δ today 0.0200
75
GCC
0.8110
This paper
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
194
LCGNN
0.7750
This paper
233
AD-GCL
actual #233 vs paper #271 38 places worse
0.7582 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #233 vs paper #271 38 places worse
paper 0.7330
paper 0.7330 Δ today 0.0252
248
JOAO
actual #248 vs paper #305 57 places worse
0.7535 ±0.0093
best reported
actual #248 vs paper #305 57 places worse
paper 0.6950
paper 0.6950 Δ today 0.0585
290
GraphCL(G)
0.7140
This paper
299
IGSD
0.7040
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
13
GIN
0.9240
This paper
24
JOAO
actual #24 vs paper #58 34 places worse
0.9166 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #58 34 places worse
paper 0.8640
paper 0.8640 Δ today 0.0526
27
HTC
0.9130
This paper
37
AD-GCL
actual #37 vs paper #62 25 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #62 25 places worse
paper 0.8550
paper 0.8550 Δ today 0.0460
42
GCC
0.8980
This paper
45
GraphCL(G)
0.8950
This paper
46
InfoGraph
actual #46 vs paper #68 22 places worse
0.8939 ±0.0181
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #68 22 places worse
paper 0.8250
paper 0.8250 Δ today 0.0689
65
MVGRL
0.8450
This paper
84
GCN
0.7060 ±0.0369
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