AAAI 2021

Augmentation-Free Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs

Namkyeong Lee, Junseok Lee, Chanyoung Park

Main figure for Augmentation-Free Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs

Abstract

Inspired by the recent success of self-supervised methods applied on images, self-supervised learning on graph structured data has seen rapid growth especially centered on augmentation-based contrastive methods. However, we argue that without carefully designed augmentation techniques, augmentations on graphs may behave arbitrarily in that the underlying semantics of graphs can drastically change. As a consequence, the performance of existing augmentation-based methods is highly dependent on the choice of augmentation scheme, i.e., hyperparameters associated with augmentations. In this paper, we propose a novel augmentation-free self-supervised learning framework for graphs, named AFGRL. Specifically, we generate an alternative view of a graph by discovering nodes that share the local structural information and the global semantics with the graph. Extensive experiments towards various node-level tasks, i.e., node classification, clustering, and similarity search on various real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of AFGRL. The source code for AFGRL is available at.

Proposed method: AFGRL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 5 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
130
AFGRL
actual #130 vs paper #189 59 places worse
0.9361 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #130 vs paper #189 59 places worse
paper 0.9322 ±0.0028

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9322 ±0.0028 Δ today 0.0039
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #214 42 places worse
0.9307 ±0.0038
actual #172 vs paper #214 42 places worse
paper 0.9307 ±0.0038

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9307 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0020
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #302 111 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #302 111 places worse
paper 0.9239 ±0.0033
paper 0.9239 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0074 Δ today 0.0081
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #288 85 places worse
0.9246 ±0.0018
actual #203 vs paper #288 85 places worse
paper 0.9246 ±0.0018
paper 0.9246 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0031 Δ today 0.0067
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #359 153 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #359 153 places worse
paper 0.9174 ±0.0007
294
Sup. GCN
0.9242 ±0.0022
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
408
GMI
actual #408 vs paper #417 9 places worse
0.9081 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #408 vs paper #417 9 places worse
paper 0.9068 ±0.0017

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9068 ±0.0017 Δ today 0.0013
445
DW + feats.
0.9005 ±0.0008
This paper
457
Node2Vec
actual #457 vs paper #458 1 place worse
0.8970 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #457 vs paper #458 1 place worse
paper 0.8967 ±0.0012

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8967 ±0.0012 Δ today 0.0003
538
Raw feats.
0.7853
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
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #125 46 places worse
0.8969 ±0.0037
actual #79 vs paper #125 46 places worse
paper 0.8969 ±0.0037

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8969 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0065
112
AFGRL
0.8988 ±0.0033
This paper
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #270 131 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #270 131 places worse
paper 0.8650 ±0.0033
paper 0.8650 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0096 Δ today 0.0303
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #243 83 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #243 83 places worse
paper 0.8732 ±0.0050
paper 0.8732 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0162 Δ today 0.0162
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #235 56 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #235 56 places worse
paper 0.8752 ±0.0011
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #354 144 places worse
0.8798 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #354 144 places worse
paper 0.8395 ±0.0047
270
Sup. GCN
0.8651 ±0.0054
This paper
278
DeepWalk
actual #278 vs paper #296 18 places worse
0.8628 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #278 vs paper #296 18 places worse
paper 0.8568 ±0.0006
paper 0.8568 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0060
280
DW + feats.
0.8628 ±0.0007
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
330
Node2Vec
actual #330 vs paper #334 4 places worse
0.8440 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #334 4 places worse
paper 0.8439 ±0.0008

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8439 ±0.0008 Δ today 0.0001
342
GMI
actual #342 vs paper #398 56 places worse
0.8422 ±0.0052
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #398 56 places worse
paper 0.8221 ±0.0031
paper 0.8221 ±0.0031 Δ today 0.0201
458
Raw feats.
0.7381
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
69
BGRL
actual #69 vs paper #122 53 places worse
0.9580 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #122 53 places worse
paper 0.9548 ±0.0008

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9548 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.0008 Δ today 0.0032
78
AFGRL
actual #78 vs paper #88 10 places worse
0.9574 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #88 10 places worse
paper 0.9569 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9569 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0005
93
Sup. GCN
0.9565 ±0.0016
This paper
164
DW + feats.
0.9490 ±0.0009
This paper
213
Raw feats.
0.9358
This paper
#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
actual #94 vs paper #175 81 places worse
0.8014 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #175 81 places worse
paper 0.7797 ±0.0063
paper 0.7797 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.0217 Δ today 0.0217
100
BGRL
actual #100 vs paper #210 110 places worse
0.8000 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #100 vs paper #210 110 places worse
paper 0.7686 ±0.0074
paper 0.7686 ±0.0074 Δ at pub 0.0312 Δ today 0.0314
143
AFGRL
actual #143 vs paper #187 44 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #143 vs paper #187 44 places worse
paper 0.7762 ±0.0049
paper 0.7762 ±0.0049 Δ today 0.0128
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 ±0.0014

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7535 ±0.0014 Δ today 0.0330
162
GCA
actual #162 vs paper #176 14 places worse
0.7840 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #176 14 places worse
paper 0.7794 ±0.0067

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7794 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.0041 Δ today 0.0046
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 ±0.0008

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7752 ±0.0008 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 ±0.0006
paper 0.7435 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0286
199
DW + feats.
0.7721 ±0.0003
This paper
204
Sup. GCN
0.7719 ±0.0012
This paper
234
GMI
actual #234 vs paper #234
0.7490 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #234 vs paper #234
paper 0.7485 ±0.0008

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7485 ±0.0008 Δ today 0.0005
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
254
Raw feats.
0.7198
This paper
258
Node2Vec
actual #258 vs paper #258
0.7180 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #258 vs paper #258
paper 0.7179 ±0.0005

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7179 ±0.0005 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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere