Simple Contrastive Graph Clustering

Yue Liu, Xihong Yang, Sihang Zhou, Xinwang Liu, Siwei Wang, K. Liang, Wenxuan Tu, Liangjun Li

Main figure for Simple Contrastive Graph Clustering

Abstract

Contrastive learning has recently attracted plenty of attention in deep graph clustering for its promising performance. However, complicated data augmentations and time-consuming graph convolutional operation undermine the efficiency of these methods. To solve this problem, we propose a Simple Contrastive Graph Clustering (SCGC) algorithm to improve the existing methods from the perspectives of network architecture, data augmentation, and objective function. As to the architecture, our network includes two main parts, i.e., pre-processing and network backbone. A simple low-pass denoising operation conducts neighbor information aggregation as an independent pre-processing, and only two multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) are included as the backbone. For data augmentation, instead of introducing complex operations over graphs, we construct two augmented views of the same vertex by designing parameter un-shared siamese encoders and perturbing the node embeddings directly. Finally, as to the objective function, to further improve the clustering performance, a novel cross-view structural consistency objective function is designed to enhance the discriminative capability of the learned network. Extensive experimental results on seven benchmark datasets validate our proposed algorithm's effectiveness and superiority. Significantly, our algorithm outperforms the recent contrastive deep clustering competitors with at least seven times speedup on average.

Proposed method: SCGC

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 6 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Hypergraph Benchmarks

AMAP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GANN
0.9405 ±0.0037
2
GPRGNN
0.9308 ±0.0026
3
GAT
0.9238 ±0.0014
14
GCN
0.8115 ±0.0105
16
DFCN
actual #16 vs paper #23 7 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #23 7 places worse
paper 0.7125 ±0.0031
paper 0.7125 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0475
20
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
This paper
21
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
This paper
23
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
This paper
26
DAEGC
actual #26 vs paper #26
0.6987 ±0.0054
actual #26 vs paper #26
paper 0.6987 ±0.0054
paper 0.6987 ±0.0054 Δ at pub 0.0782
29
GAE
actual #29 vs paper #29
0.6808 ±0.0176
actual #29 vs paper #29
paper 0.6808 ±0.0176
paper 0.6808 ±0.0176 Δ at pub 0.0687
31
SDCN
actual #31 vs paper #46 15 places worse
0.6805 ±0.0181
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #46 15 places worse
paper 0.5066 ±0.0149
paper 0.5066 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.1739
35
ARGA
actual #35 vs paper #35
0.6483 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #35
paper 0.6430 ±0.0195

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6430 ±0.0195 Δ at pub 0.0053
40
DEC
actual #40 vs paper #49 9 places worse
0.5816 ±0.0056
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #49 9 places worse
paper 0.4671 ±0.0012
paper 0.4671 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.1145
44
SSGC
0.5279 ±0.0001
This paper
45
AE
actual #45 vs paper #48 3 places worse
0.5143 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #48 3 places worse
paper 0.4787 ±0.0020
paper 0.4787 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0356
50
MVGRL
actual #50 vs paper #52 2 places worse
0.4600
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #52 2 places worse
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550 Δ at pub 0.0985 Δ today 0.1312
54
K-means
actual #54 vs paper #55 1 place worse
0.3192 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #55 1 place worse
paper 0.2396 ±0.0051
paper 0.2396 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0796
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
This paper
2
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
This paper
3
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
This paper
4
DAEGC
0.6987 ±0.0054
This paper
5
GAE
0.6808 ±0.0176
This paper
6
DFCN
0.6718 ±0.0013
This paper
7
ARGA
0.6430 ±0.0195
This paper
16
SSGC
0.5279 ±0.0001
This paper
22
SDCN
0.5066 ±0.0149
This paper
24
MVGRL
actual #24 vs paper #34 10 places worse
0.4900 ±0.0400
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #34 10 places worse
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550 Δ today 0.1612
27
AE
0.4787 ±0.0020
This paper
28
DEC
0.4671 ±0.0012
This paper
35
K-means
0.2396 ±0.0051
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GraphLearner
0.7540 ±0.0088
2
SCGDN
0.7449 ±0.0026
3
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
This paper
4
ARGA
0.7174 ±0.0093
This paper
6
AGE
0.7125 ±0.0031
This paper
5
SDCN
0.7125 ±0.0031
This paper
7
MVGRL
0.7047 ±0.0370
This paper
8
DAEGC
0.6987 ±0.0054
This paper
9
GAE
0.6808 ±0.0176
This paper
19
AE
0.4787 ±0.0020
This paper
20
DEC
0.4671 ±0.0012
This paper
29
K-means
0.2396 ±0.0051
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
This paper
2
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
This paper
3
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
This paper
4
DFCN
0.7125 ±0.0031
This paper
5
DAEGC
0.6987 ±0.0054
This paper
6
GAE
0.6808 ±0.0176
This paper
7
ARGA
0.6430 ±0.0195
This paper
11
SSGC
0.5279 ±0.0001
This paper
12
SDCN
0.5066 ±0.0149
This paper
15
AE
0.4787 ±0.0020
This paper
17
MVGRL
actual #17 vs paper #27 10 places worse
0.4700 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #27 10 places worse
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550 Δ today 0.1412
19
DEC
0.4671 ±0.0012
This paper
30
K-means
0.2396 ±0.0051
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere