NeurIPS 2022

Label-invariant Augmentation for Semi-Supervised Graph Classification

Han Yue, Chunhui Zhang, Chuxu Zhang, Hongfu Liu

Main figure for Label-invariant Augmentation for Semi-Supervised Graph Classification

Abstract

Recently, contrastiveness-based augmentation surges a new climax in the computer vision domain, where some operations, including rotation, crop, and flip, combined with dedicated algorithms, dramatically increase the model generalization and robustness. Following this trend, some pioneering attempts employ the similar idea to graph data. Nevertheless, unlike images, it is much more difficult to design reasonable augmentations without changing the nature of graphs. Although exciting, the current graph contrastive learning does not achieve as promising performance as visual contrastive learning. We conjecture the current performance of graph contrastive learning might be limited by the violation of the label-invariant augmentation assumption. In light of this, we propose a label-invariant augmentation for graph-structured data to address this challenge. Different from the node/edge modification and subgraph extraction, we conduct the augmentation in the representation space and generate the augmented samples in the most difficult direction while keeping the label of augmented data the same as the original samples. In the semi-supervised scenario, we demonstrate our proposed method outperforms the classical graph neural network based methods and recent graph contrastive learning on eight benchmark graph-structured data, followed by several in-depth experiments to further explore the label-invariant augmentation in several aspects.

Proposed method: GLA

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
63
GLA
0.8324 ±0.0014
This paper
81
Infomax
0.8285 ±0.0016
This paper
104
GraphCL
actual #104 vs paper #104
0.8250 ±0.0013
actual #104 vs paper #104
paper 0.8250 ±0.0013
paper 0.8250 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0375
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
141
SimGRACE
actual #141 vs paper #141
0.8180 ±0.0015
actual #141 vs paper #141
paper 0.8180 ±0.0015
paper 0.8180 ±0.0015 Δ at pub 0.0268
146
JOAOv2
actual #146 vs paper #146
0.8170 ±0.0026
actual #146 vs paper #146
paper 0.8170 ±0.0026
paper 0.8170 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0334
236
GAE
actual #236 vs paper #236
0.7978 ±0.0017
actual #236 vs paper #236
paper 0.7978 ±0.0017
paper 0.7978 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0648
356
MVGRL
actual #356 vs paper #424 68 places worse
0.7700 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #356 vs paper #424 68 places worse
paper 0.7443 ±0.0008
paper 0.7443 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.0257 Δ today 0.0257
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
32
JOAOv2
actual #32 vs paper #32
0.8216 ±0.0017
actual #32 vs paper #32
paper 0.8216 ±0.0017
paper 0.8216 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0663
37
SimGRACE
0.8188 ±0.0023
This paper
47
GLA
0.8154 ±0.0014
This paper
80
GraphCL
actual #80 vs paper #80
0.8108 ±0.0017
actual #80 vs paper #80
paper 0.8108 ±0.0017
paper 0.8108 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0968
81
Infomax
0.8104 ±0.0012
This paper
91
GAE
actual #91 vs paper #91
0.8078 ±0.0012
actual #91 vs paper #91
paper 0.8078 ±0.0012
paper 0.8078 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.2448
104
MVGRL
actual #104 vs paper #221 117 places worse
0.7642 ±0.0008
actual #104 vs paper #221 117 places worse
paper 0.7642 ±0.0008

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7642 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.0042 Δ today 0.0406
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
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