Enhancing Graph Contrastive Learning with Node Similarity

H. Chi, Yao Ma

Main figure for Enhancing Graph Contrastive Learning with Node Similarity

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved great success in learning graph representations and thus facilitating various graph-related tasks. However, most GNN methods adopt a supervised learning setting, which is not always feasible in real-world applications due to the difficulty to obtain labeled data. Hence, graph self-supervised learning has been attracting increasing attention. Graph contrastive learning (GCL) is a representative framework for self-supervised learning. In general, GCL learns node representations by contrasting semantically similar nodes (positive samples) and dissimilar nodes (negative samples) with anchor nodes. Without access to labels, positive samples are typically generated by data augmentation, and negative samples are uniformly sampled from the entire graph, which leads to a sub-optimal objective. Specifically, data augmentation naturally limits the number of positive samples that involve in the process (typically only one positive sample is adopted). On the other hand, the random sampling process would inevitably select false-negative samples (samples sharing the same semantics with the anchor). These issues limit the learning capability of GCL. In this work, we propose an enhanced objective that addresses the aforementioned issues. We first introduce an unachievable ideal objective that contains all positive samples and no false-negative samples. This ideal objective is then transformed into a probabilistic form based on the distributions for sampling positive and negative samples. We then model these distributions with node similarity and derive the enhanced objective. Comprehensive experiments on various datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed enhanced objective under different settings.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
0.9004
134
GRACE
actual #134 vs paper #339 205 places worse
0.8362 ±0.0113
actual #134 vs paper #339 205 places worse
paper 0.8362 ±0.0113

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8362 ±0.0113 Δ at pub 0.0152 Δ today 0.0358
143
Graph-MLP
actual #143 vs paper #631 488 places worse
0.8706 ±0.0138
best reported
actual #143 vs paper #631 488 places worse
paper 0.8051 ±0.0069
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
69
Graph-MLP
actual #69 vs paper #227 158 places worse
0.7886 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #227 158 places worse
paper 0.7403 ±0.0051
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #436 235 places worse
0.7226 ±0.0082
actual #201 vs paper #436 235 places worse
paper 0.7226 ±0.0082

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7226 ±0.0082 Δ at pub 0.0056 Δ today 0.0224
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
113
Graph-MLP
actual #113 vs paper #348 235 places worse
0.8893 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #348 235 places worse
paper 0.8142 ±0.0092
194
GRACE
actual #194 vs paper #223 29 places worse
0.8645 ±0.0029
actual #194 vs paper #223 29 places worse
paper 0.8645 ±0.0029
paper 0.8645 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0591 Δ today 0.0085
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere