Towards Graph Self-Supervised Learning with Contrastive Adjusted Zooming

Yizhen Zheng, Ming Jin, Shirui Pan, Yuan-Fang Li, Hao Peng, Ming Li, Zhao‐Rui Li

Main figure for Towards Graph Self-Supervised Learning with Contrastive Adjusted Zooming

Abstract

Graph representation learning (GRL) is critical for graph-structured data analysis. However, most of the existing graph neural networks (GNNs) heavily rely on labeling information, which is normally expensive to obtain in the real world. Although some existing works aim to effectively learn graph representations in an unsupervised manner, they suffer from certain limitations, such as the heavy reliance on monotone contrastiveness and limited scalability. To overcome the aforementioned problems, in light of the recent advancements in graph contrastive learning, we introduce a novel self-supervised graph representation learning algorithm via raph Contrastive Adjusted ing, namely G-Zoom, to learn node representations by leveraging the proposed adjusted zooming scheme. Specifically, this mechanism enables G-Zoom to explore and extract self-supervision signals from a graph from multiple scales: micro (i.e.,\ node-level), meso (i.e.,\ neighborhood-level), and macro (i.e.,\ subgraph-level). Firstly, we generate two augmented views of the input graph via two different graph augmentations. Then, we establish three different contrastiveness on the above three scales progressively, from node, neighboring, to subgraph level, where we maximize the agreement between graph representations across scales. While we can extract valuable clues from a given graph on the micro and macro perspectives, the neighboring-level contrastiveness offers G-Zoom the capability of a customizable option based on our adjusted zooming scheme to manually choose an optimal viewpoint that lies between the micro and macro perspectives to better understand the graph data. Additionally, to make our model scalable to large graphs, we employ a parallel graph diffusion approach to decouple model training from the graph size. We have conducted extensive experiments on real-world datasets, and the results demonstrate that our proposed model outperforms state-of-the-art methods consistently.

Proposed method: G-Zoom

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
6
GAT
actual #6 vs paper #116 110 places worse
0.9782 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #116 110 places worse
paper 0.9550 ±0.0020
paper 0.9550 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0070 Δ today 0.0232
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #84 75 places worse
0.9774 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #84 75 places worse
paper 0.9570 ±0.0020
paper 0.9570 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0080 Δ today 0.0204
17
SAGE
0.9739 ±0.0018
41
G-Zoom
0.9660 ±0.0030
This paper
50
SubG-Con
0.9620 ±0.0040
This paper
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
70
SGC
actual #70 vs paper #70
0.9580 ±0.0010
actual #70 vs paper #70
paper 0.9580 ±0.0010
prev best: Elastic Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021)
paper 0.9580 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0270
77
GRACE
actual #77 vs paper #144 67 places worse
0.9520 ±0.0020
actual #77 vs paper #144 67 places worse
paper 0.9520 ±0.0020
paper 0.9520 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0050 Δ today 0.0054
125
MVGRL
actual #125 vs paper #136 11 places worse
0.9544 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #136 11 places worse
paper 0.9530 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9530 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0014
167
DGI
actual #167 vs paper #174 7 places worse
0.9489 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #167 vs paper #174 7 places worse
paper 0.9450 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9450 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0039
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ±0.0025
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #69 57 places worse
0.9514 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #69 57 places worse
paper 0.9300 ±0.0030
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.9300 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0214
14
G-Zoom
0.9490 ±0.0030
This paper
21
GAT
actual #21 vs paper #107 86 places worse
0.9437 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #107 86 places worse
paper 0.9230 ±0.0020
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.9230 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0150 Δ today 0.0207
26
SubG-Con
0.9400 ±0.0060
This paper
43
DGI
actual #43 vs paper #113 70 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0060
actual #43 vs paper #113 70 places worse
paper 0.9220 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9220 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0130
69
GRACE
actual #69 vs paper #87 18 places worse
0.9301 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #87 18 places worse
paper 0.9280 ±0.0010
paper 0.9280 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0021
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #96
0.9270 ±0.0010
actual #96 vs paper #96
paper 0.9270 ±0.0010
paper 0.9270 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0240
109
CG3
0.9230 ±0.0020
This paper
116
MVGRL
actual #116 vs paper #118 2 places worse
0.9211 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #116 vs paper #118 2 places worse
paper 0.9210 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9210 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0001
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere