Graph Barlow Twins: A self-supervised representation learning framework for graphs

Piotr Bielak, Tomasz Kajdanowicz, Nitesh V. Chawla

Main figure for Graph Barlow Twins: A self-supervised representation learning framework for graphs

Abstract

[1] The self-supervised learning (SSL) paradigm is an essential exploration area, which tries to eliminate the need for expensive data labeling. Despite the great success of SSL methods in computer vision and natural language processing, most of them employ contrastive learning objectives that require negative samples, which are hard to define. This becomes even more challenging in the case of graphs and is a bottleneck for achieving robust representations. To overcome such limitations, we propose a framework for self-supervised graph representation learning --- Graph Barlow Twins, which utilizes a cross-correlation-based loss function instead of negative samples. Moreover, it does not rely on non-symmetric neural network architectures --- in contrast to state-of-the-art self-supervised graph representation learning method BGRL. We show that our method achieves as competitive results as the best self-supervised methods and fully supervised ones while requiring fewer hyperparameters and substantially shorter computation time (ca. 30 times faster than BGRL).

Proposed method: G-BT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
21
GCN
0.9850
58
Supervised GAT
0.9730 ±0.0020
This paper
125
G-BT
0.7049 ±0.0019
This paper
124
BGRL GAT encoder
0.7049 ±0.0005
This paper
126
GRACE
actual #126 vs paper #138 12 places worse
0.6971 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #138 12 places worse
paper 0.6620 ±0.0010
paper 0.6620 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0351
127
GRACE GAT encoder
0.6971 ±0.0017
This paper
142
GMI
0.6500 ±0.0002
This paper
148
DGI
0.6380 ±0.0020
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
176
Raw features
actual #176 vs paper #177 1 place worse
0.4250 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #176 vs paper #177 1 place worse
paper 0.4220

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4220 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0030
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
0.9302 ±0.0011
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
94
GRACE
0.8014 ±0.4800
This paper
100
BGRL
actual #100 vs paper #117 17 places worse
0.8000 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #100 vs paper #117 17 places worse
paper 0.7936 ±0.5300

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7936 ±0.5300 Δ at pub 0.0062 Δ today 0.0064
151
DGI
actual #151 vs paper #228 77 places worse
0.7865 ±0.0690
best reported
actual #151 vs paper #228 77 places worse
paper 0.7535 ±0.1400

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7535 ±0.1400 Δ today 0.0330
162
GCA
actual #162 vs paper #163 1 place worse
0.7840 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #163 1 place worse
paper 0.7835 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7835 ±0.0500 Δ today 0.0005
190
MVGRL
actual #190 vs paper #191 1 place worse
0.7757 ±0.0046
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #191 1 place worse
paper 0.7752 ±0.0800

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7752 ±0.0800 Δ today 0.0005
198
DeepWalk
actual #198 vs paper #240 42 places worse
0.7721
best reported
actual #198 vs paper #240 42 places worse
paper 0.7435 ±0.0600

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7435 ±0.0600 Δ today 0.0286
200
DeepWalk + feat.
0.7721 ±0.0300
This paper
203
Supervised GCN
0.7719 ±0.1200
This paper
211
G-BT
actual #211 vs paper #212 1 place worse
0.7683 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #212 1 place worse
paper 0.7665 ±0.6200

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7665 ±0.6200 Δ today 0.0018
213
Full-Batch
0.7665 ±0.6200
This paper
219
512
0.7583 ±0.6400
This paper
221
1024
0.7579 ±0.7700
This paper
222
256
0.7569 ±1.0200
This paper
224
2048
0.7558 ±0.5200
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
256
Raw features
0.7198
This paper

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIANT-XRT
0.7612 ±0.0016
2
GEGCN
0.7576 ±0.0064
3
AGDN
0.7522 ±0.0007
23
GCN
0.7300 ±0.0017
53
Supervised GCN
0.7174 ±0.0029
This paper
56
BGRL
0.7164 ±0.0012
This paper
60
GRACE
0.7151 ±0.0011
This paper
68
Node2Vec
actual #68 vs paper #84 16 places worse
0.7129 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #84 16 places worse
paper 0.7007 ±0.0013
83
DGI
0.7034 ±0.0016
This paper
84
G-BT
0.7012 ±0.0018
This paper
107
MLP
actual #107 vs paper #108 1 place worse
0.5765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #108 1 place worse
paper 0.5550 ±0.0023
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere