NeurIPS 2022

Rethinking and Scaling Up Graph Contrastive Learning: An Extremely Efficient Approach with Group Discrimination

Yizhen Zheng, Shirui Pan, V. Lee, Yu Zheng, Philip S. Yu

Main figure for Rethinking and Scaling Up Graph Contrastive Learning: An Extremely Efficient Approach with Group Discrimination

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) alleviates the heavy reliance on label information for graph representation learning (GRL) via self-supervised learning schemes. The core idea is to learn by maximising mutual information for similar instances, which requires similarity computation between two node instances. However, GCL is inefficient in both time and memory consumption. In addition, GCL normally requires a large number of training epochs to be well-trained on large-scale datasets. Inspired by an observation of a technical defect (i.e., inappropriate usage of Sigmoid function) commonly used in two representative GCL works, DGI and MVGRL, we revisit GCL and introduce a new learning paradigm for self-supervised graph representation learning, namely, Group Discrimination (GD), and propose a novel GD-based method called raph roup iscrimination (GGD). Instead of similarity computation, GGD\ directly discriminates two groups of blacknode samples with a very simple binary cross-entropy loss. In addition, GGD\ requires much blackfewer training epochs to obtain competitive performance compared with GCL methods on large-scale datasets. These two advantages endow GGD\ with very efficient property. Extensive experiments show that GGD\ outperforms state-of-the-art self-supervised methods on eight datasets. In particular, GGD\ can be trained in 0.18 seconds (6.44 seconds including data preprocessing) on ogbn-arxiv, which is orders of magnitude (10,000+) faster than GCL baselines while consuming much less memory. Trained with 9 hours on ogbn-papers100M with billion edges, GGD\ outperforms its GCL counterparts in both accuracy and efficiency.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 15 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
actual #2 vs paper #501 499 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #501 499 places worse
paper 0.8620 ±0.0150
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #495 487 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #495 487 places worse
paper 0.8730 ±0.0100
paper 0.8730 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0512 Δ today 0.0902
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #500 450 places worse
0.9511 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #500 450 places worse
paper 0.8640
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #395 223 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #395 223 places worse
paper 0.9120 ±0.0080
paper 0.9120 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0200 Δ today 0.0217
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #524 321 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #524 321 places worse
paper 0.8180 ±0.0100
paper 0.8180 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1100 Δ today 0.1133
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #495 289 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #495 289 places worse
paper 0.8730 ±0.0030
paper 0.8730 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0444 Δ today 0.0580
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #523 310 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #523 310 places worse
paper 0.8310 ±0.0050
229
GGD
actual #229 vs paper #279 50 places worse
0.9290 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #229 vs paper #279 50 places worse
paper 0.9250 ±0.0060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9250 ±0.0060 Δ today 0.0040
235
GBT
actual #235 vs paper #399 164 places worse
0.9282 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #235 vs paper #399 164 places worse
paper 0.9110 ±0.0070
paper 0.9110 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0110 Δ today 0.0172
320
GraphCL
actual #320 vs paper #531 211 places worse
0.9222 ±0.0042
best reported
actual #320 vs paper #531 211 places worse
paper 0.7950 ±0.0040
paper 0.7950 ±0.0040 Δ today 0.1272
330
CG3
actual #330 vs paper #465 135 places worse
0.9210 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #465 135 places worse
paper 0.8940 ±0.0050
paper 0.8940 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0270
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
408
GMI
actual #408 vs paper #508 100 places worse
0.9081 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #408 vs paper #508 100 places worse
paper 0.8510 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #446 444 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #446 444 places worse
paper 0.7630 ±0.0050
paper 0.7630 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.1155 Δ today 0.1782
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #432 429 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #432 429 places worse
paper 0.7930 ±0.0110
paper 0.7930 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0763 Δ today 0.1468
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #149 70 places worse
0.9034 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #149 70 places worse
paper 0.8920 ±0.0090

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8920 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0110 Δ today 0.0114
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #454 372 places worse
0.9022 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #454 372 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0010
93
GGD
0.9010 ±0.0090
This paper
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #465 326 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #465 326 places worse
paper 0.7180 ±0.0040
paper 0.7180 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.1770 Δ today 0.1773
165
GBT
actual #165 vs paper #184 19 places worse
0.8850 ±0.0100
actual #165 vs paper #184 19 places worse
paper 0.8850 ±0.0100

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8850 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0050
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #435 256 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #435 256 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0060
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #448 238 places worse
0.8798 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #448 238 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0060
paper 0.7590 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0810 Δ today 0.1208
218
CG3
actual #218 vs paper #429 211 places worse
0.8780 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #218 vs paper #429 211 places worse
paper 0.7990 ±0.0060
paper 0.7990 ±0.0060 Δ today 0.0790
320
MLP
0.8463
342
GMI
actual #342 vs paper #444 102 places worse
0.8422 ±0.0052
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #444 102 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0010
paper 0.7680 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0541 Δ today 0.0742

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
249
GGD (1 epo)
0.7570 ±0.0040
This paper
254
Supervised GCN
0.7560 ±0.0020
This paper
313
Node2Vec
actual #313 vs paper #342 29 places worse
0.7249 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #313 vs paper #342 29 places worse
paper 0.6880
paper 0.6880 Δ at pub 0.0369 Δ today 0.0369
333
GBT (100 epos)
0.7050 ±0.0040
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #369 18 places worse
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #369 18 places worse
paper 0.6110
paper 0.6110 Δ at pub 0.2308 Δ today 0.0495
362
BGRL (100 epos)
0.6400 ±0.0160
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
0.7910
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
32
Supervised SGC
0.6650 ±0.0020
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
71
GGD (1 epoch)
0.6350 ±0.0050
This paper
82
BGRL (1 epoch)
0.6210 ±0.0030
This paper
83
GBT (1 epoch)
0.6150 ±0.0050
This paper
88
Node2Vec
actual #88 vs paper #88
0.5810
actual #88 vs paper #88
paper 0.5810

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5810 Δ at pub 0.0003
95
MLP
actual #95 vs paper #95
0.4960 ±0.0030
actual #95 vs paper #95
paper 0.4960 ±0.0030
paper 0.4960 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0236
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