Structure-Preserving Graph Representation Learning

Ruiyi Fang, Liangjiang Wen, Zhao Kang, Jianzhuang Liu

Main figure for Structure-Preserving Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

Though graph representation learning (GRL) has made significant progress, it is still a challenge to extract and embed the rich topological structure and feature information in an adequate way. Most existing methods focus on local structure and fail to fully incorporate the global topological structure. To this end, we propose a novel Structure-Preserving Graph Representation Learning (SPGRL) method, to fully capture the structure information of graphs. Specifically, to reduce the uncertainty and misinformation of the original graph, we construct a feature graph as a complementary view via $k$-Nearest Neighbor method. The feature graph can be used to contrast at node-level to capture the local relation. Besides, we retain the global topological structure information by maximizing the mutual information (MI) of the whole graph and feature embeddings, which is theoretically reduced to exchanging the feature embeddings of the feature and the original graphs to reconstruct themselves. Extensive experiments show that our method has quite superior performance on semi-supervised node classification task and excellent robustness under noise perturbation on graph structure or node features. The source code is available at.

Proposed method: SPGRL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 7 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

ACM

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

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SPGRL
0.9398
This paper
2
CDC
0.9360
3
SynC SSL
0.9274 ±0.0004
9
SCRL
0.9179
This paper
17
GCN
actual #17 vs paper #31 14 places worse
0.9049
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #31 14 places worse
paper 0.8782
paper 0.8782 Δ at pub 0.0267
18
AMGCN
0.9043
This paper
20
DGI
0.9040
This paper
21
GAT
actual #21 vs paper #31 10 places worse
0.9039
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #31 10 places worse
paper 0.8744
paper 0.8744 Δ at pub 0.0295
23
GMI
0.9000
This paper
28
GRACE
0.8900
This paper
30
GCA
0.8879
This paper
35
DEMO-Net
actual #35 vs paper #36 1 place worse
0.8483
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #36 1 place worse
paper 0.8416
paper 0.8416 Δ at pub 0.0067
38
MixHop
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
0.8224
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
paper 0.8140
paper 0.8140 Δ at pub 0.0084
39
kNN-GCN
actual #39 vs paper #39
0.8195
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #39
paper 0.7814
paper 0.7814 Δ at pub 0.0381
40
ChebNet
0.7486
This paper
41
DeepWalk
actual #41 vs paper #44 3 places worse
0.6699
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #44 3 places worse
paper 0.6211
paper 0.6211 Δ at pub 0.0488
51
SLAPS
0.6000
This paper
53
LINE
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.4992
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.4012
paper 0.4012 Δ at pub 0.0980
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)