NeurIPS 2021

Multi-view Contrastive Graph Clustering

Erlin Pan, Zhao Kang

Main figure for Multi-view Contrastive Graph Clustering

Abstract

With the explosive growth of information technology, multi-view graph data have become increasingly prevalent and valuable. Most existing multi-view clustering techniques either focus on the scenario of multiple graphs or multi-view attributes. In this paper, we propose a generic framework to cluster multi-view attributed graph data. Specifically, inspired by the success of contrastive learning, we propose multi-view contrastive graph clustering (MCGC) method to learn a consensus graph since the original graph could be noisy or incomplete and is not directly applicable. Our method composes of two key steps: we first filter out the undesirable high-frequency noise while preserving the graph geometric features via graph filtering and obtain a smooth representation of nodes; we then learn a consensus graph regularized by graph contrastive loss. Results on several benchmark datasets show the superiority of our method with respect to state-of-the-art approaches. In particular, our simple approach outperforms existing deep learning-based methods.

Proposed method: MCGC

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 2 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
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #567 361 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #567 361 places worse
paper 0.5054
paper 0.5054 Δ at pub 0.4120 Δ today 0.4256
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
557
MCGC
0.7164
This paper
566
MAGCN
0.5167
This paper
571
COMPLETER
0.3678
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #502 323 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #502 323 places worse
paper 0.2450
320
MLP
0.8463
483
MCGC
0.5967
This paper
503
COMPLETER
0.2417
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9566 ±0.0020
2
PSHGCN
0.9561 ±0.0012
3
RpHGNN
0.9555 ±0.0029
21
GCN
0.9460 ±0.0031
58
MCGC
0.9252
This paper
80
O2MAC
0.9013
This paper
83
O2MA
0.8976
This paper
87
GAE
0.8743
This paper
102
LINE
0.8546
This paper
119
RMSC
0.8248
This paper
139
PMNE
0.7966
This paper
176
MLP
0.6447 ±0.0136
193
SwMC
0.2808
This paper
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9469 ±0.0036
2
PSHGCN
0.9427 ±0.0023
3
SlotGAT
0.9406 ±0.0022
29
GCN
0.9229
42
MCGC
0.9155
This paper
55
O2MAC
0.9053
This paper
69
O2MA
0.8894
This paper
99
GAE
0.8225
This paper
109
MLP
0.7102 ±0.0221
110
PMNE
0.6955
This paper
111
LINE
0.6594
This paper
114
RMSC
0.5746
This paper
115
SwMC
0.0180
This paper
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
ELLA
0.7930 ±0.0010
2
MHGCN
0.7820 ±0.0138
3
PSHGCN
0.7446 ±0.0032
14
GCN
0.6813 ±0.0083
74
MLP
0.5514
95
MCGC
0.4512
This paper
97
O2MA
0.4229
This paper
98
GAE
0.4062
This paper
101
PMNE
0.3906
This paper
109
SwMC
0.3164
This paper
110
LINE
0.2870
This paper
111
O2MAC
0.1459
This paper
112
RMSC
0.0018
This paper
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)