ICML 2022

Let Invariant Rationale Discovery Inspire Graph Contrastive Learning

Sihang Li, Xiang Wang, An Zhang, Y. Wu, Xiangnan He, Tat-seng Chua

Main figure for Let Invariant Rationale Discovery Inspire Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Leading graph contrastive learning (GCL) methods perform graph augmentations in two fashions: (1) randomly corrupting the anchor graph, which could cause the loss of semantic information, or (2) using domain knowledge to maintain salient features, which undermines the generalization to other domains. Taking an invariance look at GCL, we argue that a high-performing augmentation should preserve the salient semantics of anchor graphs regarding instance-discrimination. To this end, we relate GCL with invariant rationale discovery, and propose a new framework, Rationale-aware Graph Contrastive Learning (RGCL). Specifically, without supervision signals, RGCL uses a rationale generator to reveal salient features about graph instance-discrimination as the rationale, and then creates rationale-aware views for contrastive learning. This rationale-aware pre-training scheme endows the backbone model with the powerful representation ability, further facilitating the fine-tuning on downstream tasks. On MNIST-Superpixel and MUTAG datasets, visual inspections on the discovered rationales showcase that the rationale generator successfully captures the salient features (i.e. distinguishing semantic nodes in graphs). On biochemical molecule and social network benchmark datasets, the state-of-the-art performance of RGCL demonstrates the effectiveness of rationale-aware views for contrastive learning. Our codes are available at https://github.com/lsh0520/RGCL.

Proposed method: RGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 8 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
178
AD-GCL
actual #178 vs paper #294 116 places worse
0.9028 ±0.0401
best reported
actual #178 vs paper #294 116 places worse
paper 0.8874 ±0.0185

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8874 ±0.0185 Δ at pub 0.0096 Δ today 0.0154
355
RGCL
0.8766 ±0.0101
This paper
369
No Pre-train
0.8739 ±0.0109
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
315
RGCL
0.7814 ±0.0108
This paper
409
AD-GCL
actual #409 vs paper #439 30 places worse
0.7391 ±0.0077
actual #409 vs paper #439 30 places worse
paper 0.7391 ±0.0077
paper 0.7391 ±0.0077 Δ at pub 0.0981 Δ today 0.0127
522
No Pre-train
0.6540 ±0.0017
This paper
#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
146
InfoGraph
actual #146 vs paper #300 154 places worse
0.7940
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #300 154 places worse
paper 0.7005 ±0.0113
paper 0.7005 ±0.0113 Δ at pub 0.0935
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
233
AD-GCL
actual #233 vs paper #284 51 places worse
0.7582 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #233 vs paper #284 51 places worse
paper 0.7202 ±0.0056
paper 0.7202 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0128 Δ today 0.0380
271
RGCL
actual #271 vs paper #293 22 places worse
0.7348 ±0.0093
best reported
actual #271 vs paper #293 22 places worse
paper 0.7092 ±0.0065
paper 0.7092 ±0.0065 Δ today 0.0256
320
No Pre-train
0.6529 ±0.0016
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
13
GIN
0.9240 ±0.0250
26
RGCL
actual #26 vs paper #33 7 places worse
0.9138 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #33 7 places worse
paper 0.9034 ±0.0058
paper 0.9034 ±0.0058 Δ today 0.0104
37
AD-GCL
actual #37 vs paper #37
0.9007 ±0.0085
actual #37 vs paper #37
paper 0.9007 ±0.0085
paper 0.9007 ±0.0085 Δ at pub 0.0457
77
No Pre-train
0.7686 ±0.0025
This paper

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
ProtoMol
0.9140 ±0.0030
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
3
MemGNN
0.9070
43
GIN
0.8646 ±0.0081
98
GraphLoG
actual #98 vs paper #115 17 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0125
actual #98 vs paper #115 17 places worse
paper 0.8260 ±0.0125
paper 0.8260 ±0.0125 Δ at pub 0.0380
202
AD-GCL
actual #202 vs paper #250 48 places worse
0.7900 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #202 vs paper #250 48 places worse
paper 0.7502 ±0.0188
paper 0.7502 ±0.0188 Δ today 0.0398
242
RGCL
0.7603 ±0.0077
This paper
281
No Pre-train
0.7010 ±0.0540
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9930 ±0.0040
2
KA-GCN
0.9920 ±0.0050
3
KA-GAT
0.9910 ±0.0050
19
GCN
0.9130 ±0.0170
57
RGCL
actual #57 vs paper #63 6 places worse
0.8500 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #63 6 places worse
paper 0.8338 ±0.0091
paper 0.8338 ±0.0091 Δ today 0.0162
82
AD-GCL
actual #82 vs paper #107 25 places worse
0.8077 ±0.0392
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #107 25 places worse
paper 0.7763 ±0.0421

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7763 ±0.0421 Δ today 0.0314
103
GraphLoG
actual #103 vs paper #103
0.7872 ±0.0258
actual #103 vs paper #103
paper 0.7872 ±0.0258
paper 0.7872 ±0.0258 Δ at pub 0.1672
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
KA-GAT
0.8470 ±0.0020
2
KA-GCN
0.8420 ±0.0010
3
GraphKAN
0.8370 ±0.0010
66
GIN
0.6403 ±0.0104
123
GraphLoG
actual #123 vs paper #215 92 places worse
0.6150 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #123 vs paper #215 92 places worse
paper 0.5786 ±0.0144
paper 0.5786 ±0.0144 Δ at pub 0.0364
128
RGCL
actual #128 vs paper #130 2 places worse
0.6140 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #128 vs paper #130 2 places worse
paper 0.6138 ±0.0061

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6138 ±0.0061 Δ today 0.0002
146
AD-GCL
actual #146 vs paper #198 52 places worse
0.6080 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #198 52 places worse
paper 0.5924 ±0.0086
paper 0.5924 ±0.0086 Δ today 0.0156
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
GeomGCL
0.7630
2
LiGhT DeepGPT
0.7570 ±0.0110
3
CoMPT
0.7550
14
GCN
0.7350 ±0.0020
64
GraphLoG
actual #64 vs paper #180 116 places worse
0.6770 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #180 116 places worse
paper 0.6232 ±0.0051
paper 0.6232 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0538
138
AD-GCL
actual #138 vs paper #159 21 places worse
0.6350 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #138 vs paper #159 21 places worse
paper 0.6310 ±0.0066

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6310 ±0.0066 Δ today 0.0040
142
No Pre-train
0.6340 ±0.0060
This paper
148
RGCL
0.6333 ±0.0017
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere