ICLR 2022

Spectral Augmentation for Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs

Lu Lin, Jinghui Chen, Hongning Wang

Main figure for Spectral Augmentation for Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL), as an emerging self-supervised learning technique on graphs, aims to learn representations via instance discrimination. Its performance heavily relies on graph augmentation to reflect invariant patterns that are robust to small perturbations; yet it still remains unclear about what graph invariance GCL should capture. Recent studies mainly perform topology augmentations in a uniformly random manner in the spatial domain, ignoring its influence on the intrinsic structural properties embedded in the spectral domain. In this work, we aim to find a principled way for topology augmentations by exploring the invariance of graphs from the spectral perspective. We develop spectral augmentation which guides topology augmentations by maximizing the spectral change. Extensive experiments on both graph and node classification tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in self-supervised representation learning. The proposed method also brings promising generalization capability in transfer learning, and is equipped with intriguing robustness property under adversarial attacks. Our study sheds light on a general principle for graph topology augmentation.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
139
BGRL-SPAN
0.9358 ±0.0039
This paper
147
MVGRL-SPAN
0.9352 ±0.0026
This paper
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #198 26 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #198 26 places worse
paper 0.9317 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9317 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0020
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #244 41 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #244 41 places worse
paper 0.9278 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9278 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0035
235
GBT
actual #235 vs paper #266 31 places worse
0.9263 ±0.0044
actual #235 vs paper #266 31 places worse
paper 0.9263 ±0.0044

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9263 ±0.0044 Δ at pub 0.0043
245
GBT-SPAN
0.9278 ±0.0043
This paper
277
GRACE-SPAN
0.9256 ±0.0034
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #79
0.9034 ±0.0019
actual #79 vs paper #79
paper 0.9034 ±0.0019

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9034 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0004
91
BGRL-SPAN
0.9012 ±0.0021
This paper
97
MVGRL-SPAN
0.9009 ±0.0032
This paper
108
GRACE-SPAN
0.8995 ±0.0041
This paper
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #139
0.8953 ±0.0035
actual #139 vs paper #139
paper 0.8953 ±0.0035

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8953 ±0.0035 Δ at pub 0.0003
155
GBT-SPAN
0.8904 ±0.0043
This paper
165
GBT
actual #165 vs paper #201 36 places worse
0.8885 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #165 vs paper #201 36 places worse
paper 0.8814 ±0.0033
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #235 56 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #235 56 places worse
paper 0.8752 ±0.0011
320
MLP
0.8463
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ±0.0025
29
MVGRL-SPAN
0.9391 ±0.0024
This paper
32
BGRL-SPAN
0.9377 ±0.0021
This paper
53
BGRL
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.9331 ±0.0013
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.9331 ±0.0013

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9331 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0001
69
GRACE
actual #69 vs paper #148 79 places worse
0.9301 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #148 79 places worse
paper 0.9112 ±0.0020
paper 0.9112 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0168 Δ today 0.0189
74
GBT
actual #74 vs paper #74
0.9295 ±0.0017
actual #74 vs paper #74
paper 0.9295 ±0.0017

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9295 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0005
80
GBT-SPAN
0.9295 ±0.0037
This paper
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
125
GRACE-SPAN
0.9198 ±0.0020
This paper

TU Dortmund

#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
104
MVGRL
actual #104 vs paper #253 149 places worse
0.8048 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #253 149 places worse
paper 0.7478 ±0.0084
paper 0.7478 ±0.0084 Δ at pub 0.0164 Δ today 0.0570
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
223
GCL-SPAN
0.7637 ±0.0073
This paper
233
AD-GCL
actual #233 vs paper #250 17 places worse
0.7582 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #233 vs paper #250 17 places worse
paper 0.7511 ±0.0070
paper 0.7511 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0071 Δ today 0.0071
248
JOAO
actual #248 vs paper #248
0.7535 ±0.0093
actual #248 vs paper #248
paper 0.7535 ±0.0093

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7535 ±0.0093 Δ at pub 0.0005
253
No-Pre-Train-GIN
0.7482 ±0.0092
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIN-0
0.9240 ±0.0250
2
GIN-ε
0.9220 ±0.0230
3
DMoN
0.9100 ±0.0100
17
AD-GCL
0.8872 ±0.0153
This paper
18
GCL-SPAN
0.8841 ±0.0112
This paper
22
JOAO
0.8765 ±0.0172
This paper
27
No-Pre-Train-GIN
0.8679 ±0.0204
This paper
28
MVGRL
0.8624 ±0.0126
This paper
49
GCN
0.5653 ±0.0260
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere