Generative Subgraph Contrast for Self-Supervised Graph Representation Learning

Yuehui Han, Le Hui, Haobo Jiang, Jianjun Qian, Jin Xie

Main figure for Generative Subgraph Contrast for Self-Supervised Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

Contrastive learning has shown great promise in the field of graph representation learning. By manually constructing positive/negative samples, most graph contrastive learning methods rely on the vector inner product based similarity metric to distinguish the samples for graph representation. However, the handcrafted sample construction (e.g., the perturbation on the nodes or edges of the graph) may not effectively capture the intrinsic local structures of the graph. Also, the vector inner product based similarity metric cannot fully exploit the local structures of the graph to characterize the graph difference well. To this end, in this paper, we propose a novel adaptive subgraph generation based contrastive learning framework for efficient and robust self-supervised graph representation learning, and the optimal transport distance is utilized as the similarity metric between the subgraphs. It aims to generate contrastive samples by capturing the intrinsic structures of the graph and distinguish the samples based on the features and structures of subgraphs simultaneously. Specifically, for each center node, by adaptively learning relation weights to the nodes of the corresponding neighborhood, we first develop a network to generate the interpolated subgraph. We then construct the positive and negative pairs of subgraphs from the same and different nodes, respectively. Finally, we employ two types of optimal transport distances (i.e., Wasserstein distance and Gromov-Wasserstein distance) to construct the structured contrastive loss. Extensive node classification experiments on benchmark datasets verify the effectiveness of our graph contrastive learning method. Source code is available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 17 baseline values reported too low

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 #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0763 Δ today 0.0830
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
paper 0.7030 ±0.0070
paper 0.7030 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0913 Δ today 0.1003
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #538 477 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #538 477 places worse
paper 0.7120 ±0.0050
paper 0.7120 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0803
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
paper 0.7180 ±0.0070
73
GMI
actual #73 vs paper #326 253 places worse
0.7869 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #73 vs paper #326 253 places worse
paper 0.7300 ±0.0030
255
GSC
0.7370 ±0.0010
This paper
259
SAGE
0.7361 ±0.0190
307
SubG-Con
0.7320 ±0.0020
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
395
GraphCL
actual #395 vs paper #395
0.7250 ±0.0070
actual #395 vs paper #395
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7250 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0004
692
DeepWalk
actual #692 vs paper #883 191 places worse
0.6785 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #692 vs paper #883 191 places worse
paper 0.4320
paper 0.4320 Δ at pub 0.2465
709
Raw features
actual #709 vs paper #844 135 places worse
0.6730
best reported
actual #709 vs paper #844 135 places worse
paper 0.5780 ±0.0020
paper 0.5780 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0950
#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 #745 727 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #745 727 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #816 691 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #816 691 places worse
paper 0.7310 ±0.0140
paper 0.7310 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.1400 Δ today 0.1554
195
GMI
actual #195 vs paper #458 263 places worse
0.8726 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #195 vs paper #458 263 places worse
paper 0.7990 ±0.0020
204
DGI
actual #204 vs paper #745 541 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #745 541 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
223
DeepWalk
actual #223 vs paper #861 638 places worse
0.8652 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #861 638 places worse
paper 0.6530
327
GSC
0.8210 ±0.0020
This paper
331
GraphCL
actual #331 vs paper #474 143 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #331 vs paper #474 143 places worse
paper 0.7980 ±0.0050
paper 0.7980 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0216
373
SubG-Con
0.8100 ±0.0010
This paper
828
Raw features
actual #828 vs paper #845 17 places worse
0.7140 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #828 vs paper #845 17 places worse
paper 0.6910 ±0.0020
paper 0.6910 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0230
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #114 100 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #114 100 places worse
paper 0.9210 ±0.0110
paper 0.9210 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0450
58
GCN
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
0.9530 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
paper 0.9330 ±0.0010
paper 0.9330 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0200
60
GSC
0.9530 ±0.0010
This paper
62
SubG-Con
0.9520
This paper
65
GraphCL
0.9510 ±0.0010
This paper
70
GMI
0.9500
This paper
82
DGI
actual #82 vs paper #84 2 places worse
0.9414 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #84 2 places worse
paper 0.9400 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9400 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0014
132
Raw features
0.5850 ±0.0010
This paper
143
DeepWalk
0.3240
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9850
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.4700
57
GAT
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.9732 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.9730 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9730 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0002
92
GIN
0.8724 ±0.0002
101
GraphSAGE
actual #101 vs paper #165 64 places worse
0.7860
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #165 64 places worse
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.2730
134
GSC
0.6910 ±0.0030
This paper
137
SubG-Con
0.6690 ±0.0020
This paper
140
GraphCL
0.6590 ±0.0060
This paper
142
GMI
0.6500
This paper
148
DGI
0.6380 ±0.0020
This paper
164
DeepWalk
0.5290
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
176
Raw features
0.4250 ±0.0030
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere