WWW 2021

Augmentations in Graph Contrastive Learning: Current Methodological Flaws & Towards Better Practices

Puja Trivedi, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Yujun Yan, Yaoqing Yang, Danai Koutra

Main figure for Augmentations in Graph Contrastive Learning: Current Methodological Flaws & Towards Better Practices

Abstract

Unsupervised graph representation learning is critical to a wide range of applications where labels may be scarce or expensive to procure. Contrastive learning (CL) is an increasingly popular paradigm for such settings and the state-of-the-art in unsupervised visual representation learning. Recent work attributes the success of visual CL to use of task-relevant augmentations and large, diverse datasets. Interestingly, graph CL frameworks report strong performance despite using orders of magnitude smaller datasets and employing domain-agnostic graph augmentations (DAGAs). Motivated by this discrepancy, we probe the quality of representations learnt by popular graph CL frameworks using DAGAs. We find that DAGAs can destroy task-relevant information and harm the model's ability to learn discriminative representations. On small benchmark datasets, we show the inductive bias of graph neural networks can significantly compensate for this weak discriminability. Based on our findings, we propose several sanity checks that enable practitioners to quickly assess the quality of their model's learned representations. We further propose a broad strategy for designing task-aware augmentations that are amenable to graph CL and demonstrate its efficacy on two large-scale, complex graph applications. For example, in graph-based document classification, we show task-relevant augmentations improve accuracy up to 20$\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

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
0.9330 ±0.0290
399
Random Init (5 layers)
0.8673 ±0.1033
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
104
GraphCL
actual #104 vs paper #313 209 places worse
0.7816 ±0.0051
actual #104 vs paper #313 209 places worse
paper 0.7816 ±0.0051

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7816 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0026 Δ today 0.0434
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
263
GraphSAGE InfoGraph
0.7900 ±0.0020
This paper
319
GraphSAGE GraphCL
0.7800 ±0.0080
This paper
338
InfoGraph
actual #338 vs paper #442 104 places worse
0.7750 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #338 vs paper #442 104 places worse
paper 0.7358 ±0.0016
paper 0.7358 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0306 Δ today 0.0392
411
GraphSAGE 4 Layer
0.7500 ±0.0060
This paper
439
GraphSAGE 3 Layer
0.7400 ±0.0030
This paper
451
GraphSAGE 5 Layer
0.7300 ±0.0110
This paper
476
RAND
0.7065 ±0.0199
This paper
511
PNA 3 Layer
0.6700 ±0.0080
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ID-GNN+BEC
0.8150 ±0.0240
2
GIN+BEC
0.8080 ±0.0330
3
GCN+BEC
0.7990 ±0.0340
4
GCN
0.7980 ±0.0230
82
InfoGraph
actual #82 vs paper #82
0.7303 ±0.0087
actual #82 vs paper #82
paper 0.7303 ±0.0087

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7303 ±0.0087 Δ at pub 0.0003
124
GraphCL
0.7114 ±0.0044
This paper
139
Random Init (3 layers)
0.6722 ±0.0777
This paper
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