Contrastive Graph Few-Shot Learning

Chunhui Zhang, Hongfu Liu, Jundong Li, Yanfang Ye, Chuxu Zhang

Main figure for Contrastive Graph Few-Shot Learning

Abstract

Prevailing deep graph learning models often suffer from label sparsity issue. Although many graph few-shot learning (GFL) methods have been developed to avoid the performance degradation in face of limited annotated data, they excessively rely on labeled data, where the distribution shift in the test phase might result in impaired generalization ability. Additionally, they lack a general purpose as their designs are coupled with task or data-specific characteristics. To this end, we propose a general and effective Contrastive Graph Few-shot Learning framework (CGFL). CGFL leverages a self-distilled contrastive learning procedure to boost GFL. Specifically, our model firstly pre-trains a graph encoder with contrastive learning using unlabeled data. Later, the trained encoder is frozen as a teacher model to distill a student model with a contrastive loss. The distilled model is finally fed to GFL. CGFL learns data representation in a self-supervised manner, thus mitigating the distribution shift impact for better generalization and making model task and data-independent for a general graph mining purpose. Furthermore, we introduce an information-based method to quantitatively measure the capability of CGFL. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that CGFL outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on several graph mining tasks in the few-shot scenario. We also provide quantitative measurement of CGFL's success.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
18
WL
actual #18 vs paper #108 90 places worse
0.6950 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #108 90 places worse
paper 0.5847 ±0.0384
paper 0.5847 ±0.0384 Δ at pub 0.1103
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #108 76 places worse
0.6767 ±0.0583
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #108 76 places worse
paper 0.5883 ±0.0532
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5883 ±0.0532 Δ at pub 0.0337 Δ today 0.0884
68
CGFL-T
0.6297 ±0.0292
This paper
70
DiffPool
actual #70 vs paper #160 90 places worse
0.6253
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #160 90 places worse
paper 0.4964 ±0.0423
73
Teacher-T
0.6230 ±0.0329
This paper
77
CGFL-I
0.6166 ±0.0461
This paper
79
Teacher-I
0.6112 ±0.0480
This paper
87
AS-MAML
0.6079 ±0.0274
This paper
89
GSM-GAT
0.6064 ±0.0384
This paper
105
GIN-KNN
0.5934 ±0.0524
This paper
113
graph2vec
0.5822 ±0.0430
This paper
116
GSM-GCN
0.5816 ±0.0439
This paper
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
127
CapsGNN
actual #127 vs paper #127
0.5531 ±0.0423
actual #127 vs paper #127
paper 0.5531 ±0.0423

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5531 ±0.0423 Δ at pub 0.0061
128
Graphlet
actual #128 vs paper #128
0.5530 ±0.0378
actual #128 vs paper #128
paper 0.5530 ±0.0378
paper 0.5530 ±0.0378 Δ at pub 0.1390
169
AWE
actual #169 vs paper #169
0.4558 ±0.0211
actual #169 vs paper #169
paper 0.4558 ±0.0211
paper 0.4558 ±0.0211 Δ at pub 0.0978
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