AAAI 2022

I'm Me, We're Us, and I'm Us: Tri-directional Contrastive Learning on Hypergraphs

Dongjin Lee, Kijung Shin

Main figure for I'm Me, We're Us, and I'm Us: Tri-directional Contrastive Learning on Hypergraphs

Abstract

Although machine learning on hypergraphs has attracted considerable attention, most of the works have focused on (semi-)supervised learning, which may cause heavy labeling costs and poor generalization. Recently, contrastive learning has emerged as a successful unsupervised representation learning method. Despite the prosperous development of contrastive learning in other domains, contrastive learning on hypergraphs remains little explored. In this paper, we propose TriCL (-directional ontrastive earning), a general framework for contrastive learning on hypergraphs. Its main idea is tri-directional contrast, and specifically, it aims to maximize in two augmented views the agreement (a) between the same node, (b) between the same group of nodes, and (c) between each group and its members. Together with simple but surprisingly effective data augmentation and negative sampling schemes, these three forms of contrast enable TriCL to capture both node- and group-level structural information in node embeddings. Our extensive experiments using 14 baseline approaches, 10 datasets, and two tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of TriCL, and most noticeably, TriCL almost consistently outperforms not just unsupervised competitors but also (semi-)supervised competitors mostly by significant margins for node classification. The code and datasets are available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 12 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #698 663 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #698 663 places worse
paper 0.6762 ±0.0250
paper 0.6762 ±0.0250 Δ at pub 0.1251 Δ today 0.1318
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #753 709 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #753 709 places worse
paper 0.6607 ±0.0240
paper 0.6607 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.1336 Δ today 0.1426
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #658 592 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #658 592 places worse
paper 0.6881 ±0.0180
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #668 467 places worse
0.7450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #668 467 places worse
paper 0.6865 ±0.0170
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #815 465 places worse
0.7289 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #815 465 places worse
paper 0.6206 ±0.0230
paper 0.6206 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0752 Δ today 0.1083
360
HyperGCN
actual #360 vs paper #831 471 places worse
0.7276 ±0.0112
best reported
actual #360 vs paper #831 471 places worse
paper 0.5992 ±0.0960

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5992 ±0.0960 Δ today 0.1284
373
HNHN
actual #373 vs paper #712 339 places worse
0.7264 ±0.0157
best reported
actual #373 vs paper #712 339 places worse
paper 0.6728 ±0.0220
paper 0.6728 ±0.0220 Δ today 0.0536
457
TriCL (L_n + L_g)
0.7202 ±0.0120
This paper
524
TriCL-NG
0.7138 ±0.0120
This paper
609
TriCL-N
0.7028 ±0.0150
This paper
679
S2-HHGR
0.6821 ±0.0180
This paper
693
AllSet
0.6783 ±0.0180
This paper
737
UniGCN
0.6640 ±0.0190
This paper
750
HGNN
0.6616 ±0.0230
This paper
766
Node2Vec
actual #766 vs paper #857 91 places worse
0.6552 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #766 vs paper #857 91 places worse
paper 0.5385 ±0.0190
791
HyperConv
0.6412 ±0.0260
This paper
827
Random-Init
0.6044 ±0.0250
This paper
863
HyperSAGE
0.5243 ±0.0940
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #313 295 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #313 295 places worse
paper 0.8263 ±0.0060
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #330 310 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #330 310 places worse
paper 0.8196 ±0.0070
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
194
GRACE
actual #194 vs paper #444 250 places worse
0.8730 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #194 vs paper #444 250 places worse
paper 0.8008 ±0.0070
paper 0.8008 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0046 Δ today 0.0722
204
DGI
actual #204 vs paper #382 178 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #382 178 places worse
paper 0.8083 ±0.0060
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #763 553 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #763 553 places worse
paper 0.7627 ±0.0110
paper 0.7627 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.1011 Δ today 0.1063
225
HGNN
actual #225 vs paper #290 65 places worse
0.8644 ±0.0044
best reported
actual #225 vs paper #290 65 places worse
paper 0.8352 ±0.0070
paper 0.8352 ±0.0070 Δ today 0.0292
251
Node2Vec
actual #251 vs paper #623 372 places worse
0.8520 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #251 vs paper #623 372 places worse
paper 0.7875 ±0.0090
272
TriCL (L_n + L_g)
0.8426 ±0.0060
This paper
273
HNHN
actual #273 vs paper #375 102 places worse
0.8421 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #273 vs paper #375 102 places worse
paper 0.8097 ±0.0090
paper 0.8097 ±0.0090 Δ today 0.0324
277
UniGCN
0.8408 ±0.0070
This paper
287
TriCL-NG
0.8368 ±0.0070
This paper
293
TriCL-N
0.8344 ±0.0060
This paper
295
HyperConv
0.8342 ±0.0060
This paper
307
AllSet
0.8285 ±0.0090
This paper
308
HyperGCN
actual #308 vs paper #646 338 places worse
0.8284 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #308 vs paper #646 338 places worse
paper 0.7840 ±0.0920

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7840 ±0.0920 Δ today 0.0444
325
S2-HHGR
0.8213 ±0.0060
This paper
519
HyperSAGE
0.7949 ±0.0870
This paper
854
Random-Init
0.6749 ±0.0220
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HG-SCM
0.9490 ±0.0015
2
SeHGNN
0.9489 ±0.0018
3
AdvSynGNN
0.9486 ±0.0012
22
TriCL (L_n + L_g)
0.9112 ±0.0010
This paper
23
TriCL-NG
0.9094 ±0.0010
This paper
24
TriCL-N
0.9088 ±0.0010
This paper
25
UniGCN
0.9031 ±0.0020
This paper
27
AllSet
0.9007 ±0.0030
This paper
29
HyperConv
0.8883 ±0.0020
This paper
30
S²-HHGR
0.8869 ±0.0020
This paper
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #31
0.8859 ±0.0010
actual #31 vs paper #31
paper 0.8859 ±0.0010
paper 0.8859 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.1679
32
HGNN
0.8832 ±0.0030
This paper
34
DGI
actual #34 vs paper #34
0.8800 ±0.0020
actual #34 vs paper #34
paper 0.8800 ±0.0020
paper 0.8800 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0480
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #36
0.8758 ±0.0020
actual #36 vs paper #36
paper 0.8758 ±0.0020
paper 0.8758 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0488
39
HNHN
0.8671 ±0.0120
This paper
65
MLP
0.8118 ±0.0020
This paper
74
HyperSAGE
0.7963 ±0.0860
This paper
79
Node2Vec
actual #79 vs paper #110 31 places worse
0.7880
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #110 31 places worse
paper 0.7209 ±0.0030
paper 0.7209 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0671
89
HyperGCN
0.7659 ±0.0760
This paper
90
Random-Init
0.7657 ±0.0060
This paper
105
GraphSAGE
0.7455 ±0.0061
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