IJCAI 2021

Multi-Scale Contrastive Siamese Networks for Self-Supervised Graph Representation Learning

Ming Jin, Yizhen Zheng, Yuan-Fang Li, Chen Gong, Chuan Zhou, Shirui Pan

Main figure for Multi-Scale Contrastive Siamese Networks for Self-Supervised Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

Graph representation learning plays a vital role in processing graph-structured data. However, prior arts on graph representation learning heavily rely on labeling information. To overcome this problem, inspired by the recent success of graph contrastive learning and Siamese networks in visual representation learning, we propose a novel self-supervised approach in this paper to learn node representations by enhancing Siamese self-distillation with multi-scale contrastive learning. Specifically, we first generate two augmented views from the input graph based on local and global perspectives. Then, we employ two objectives called cross-view and cross-network contrastiveness to maximize the agreement between node representations across different views and networks. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we perform empirical experiments on five real-world datasets. Our method not only achieves new state-of-the-art results but also surpasses some semi-supervised counterparts by large margins. Code is made available at https://github.com/GRAND-Lab/MERIT

Proposed method: MERIT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 6 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #501 499 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #501 499 places worse
paper 0.8620 ±0.0150
paper 0.8620 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0636 Δ today 0.1049
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #495 487 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #495 487 places worse
paper 0.8730 ±0.0100
paper 0.8730 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0512 Δ today 0.0902
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #500 450 places worse
0.9511 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #500 450 places worse
paper 0.8640
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #524 321 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #524 321 places worse
paper 0.8180 ±0.0100
paper 0.8180 ±0.0100 Δ today 0.1133
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #495 289 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #495 289 places worse
paper 0.8730 ±0.0030
paper 0.8730 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0444 Δ today 0.0580
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #523 310 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #523 310 places worse
paper 0.8310 ±0.0050
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
408
GMI
actual #408 vs paper #508 100 places worse
0.9081 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #408 vs paper #508 100 places worse
paper 0.8510 ±0.0010
479
MERIT
actual #479 vs paper #495 16 places worse
0.8880 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #479 vs paper #495 16 places worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0020
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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