Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning with Flexible Contextual Scopes

Yizhen Zheng, Yu Zheng, Xiaofei Zhou, Chen Gong, Vincent Lee, Shirui Pan

Main figure for Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning with Flexible Contextual Scopes

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) has recently emerged as an effective learning paradigm to alleviate the reliance on labelling information for. The core of GCL is to maximise the mutual information between the representation of a node and its contextual representation (i.e., the corresponding instance with similar semantic information) summarised from the contextual scope (e.g., the whole graph or 1-hop neighbourhood). This scheme distils valuable self-supervision signals for GCL training. However, existing GCL methods still suffer from limitations, such as the incapacity or inconvenience in choosing a suitable contextual scope for different datasets and building biased contrastiveness. To address aforementioned problems, we present a simple self-supervised learning method nifying raph ontrastive earning with Flexible Contextual Scopes (UGCL\ for short). Our algorithm builds flexible contextual representations with tunable contextual scopes by controlling the power of an adjacency matrix. Additionally, our method ensures contrastiveness is built within connected components to reduce the bias of contextual representations. Based on representations from both local and contextual scopes, UGCL \ optimises a very simple contrastive loss function for graph representation learning. Essentially, the architecture of UGCL\ can be considered as a general framework to unify existing GCL methods. We have conducted intensive experiments and achieved new state-of-the-art performance in six out of eight benchmark datasets compared with self-supervised graph representation learning baselines. Our code has been open sourced.

Proposed method: Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 17 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
actual #2 vs paper #501 499 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #501 499 places worse
paper 0.8620 ±0.0150
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #495 487 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #495 487 places worse
paper 0.8730 ±0.0100
paper 0.8730 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0512 Δ today 0.0902
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #500 450 places worse
0.9511 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #500 450 places worse
paper 0.8640
116
Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning
0.9380 ±0.0070
This paper
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #190 18 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #190 18 places worse
paper 0.9320 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9320 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0017
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #191
0.9320 ±0.0030
actual #191 vs paper #191
paper 0.9320 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9320 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0007
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #254 51 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #254 51 places worse
paper 0.9270 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9270 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0043
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #416 210 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #416 210 places worse
paper 0.9070 ±0.0030
paper 0.9070 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0104 Δ today 0.0240
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #371 158 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #371 158 places worse
paper 0.9150 ±0.0030
317
VGAE
actual #317 vs paper #324 7 places worse
0.9224
best reported
actual #317 vs paper #324 7 places worse
paper 0.9220 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9220 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0004
352
GAE
actual #352 vs paper #366 14 places worse
0.9185 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #352 vs paper #366 14 places worse
paper 0.9160 ±0.0010
paper 0.9160 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0025
390
MLP
actual #390 vs paper #540 150 places worse
0.9128 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #540 150 places worse
paper 0.7850 ±0.0010
408
GMI
actual #408 vs paper #508 100 places worse
0.9081 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #408 vs paper #508 100 places worse
paper 0.8510 ±0.0010
444
DeepWalk
actual #444 vs paper #465 21 places worse
0.9005 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #444 vs paper #465 21 places worse
paper 0.8940 ±0.0010
paper 0.8940 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0065 Δ today 0.0065
457
Node2Vec
0.8970 ±0.0010
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #276 274 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #276 274 places worse
paper 0.8630 ±0.0050
paper 0.8630 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0155 Δ today 0.0782
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #248 245 places worse
0.8710 ±0.0040
actual #3 vs paper #248 245 places worse
paper 0.8710 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8710 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0017 Δ today 0.0688
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #163 84 places worse
0.9034 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #163 84 places worse
paper 0.8890 ±0.0030
paper 0.8890 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0144 Δ today 0.0144
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #454 372 places worse
0.9022 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #454 372 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0010
95
Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning
0.9010 ±0.0050
This paper
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #247 108 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #247 108 places worse
paper 0.8720 ±0.0040
paper 0.8720 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0233 Δ today 0.0233
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #217 57 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #217 57 places worse
paper 0.8780 ±0.0030
paper 0.8780 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0114 Δ today 0.0114
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #408 229 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #408 229 places worse
paper 0.8180 ±0.0050
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #346 136 places worse
0.8410 ±0.0040
actual #210 vs paper #346 136 places worse
paper 0.8410 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8410 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0388
246
VGAE
actual #246 vs paper #273 27 places worse
0.8721 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #246 vs paper #273 27 places worse
paper 0.8640 ±0.0020
paper 0.8640 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0081
264
GAE
actual #264 vs paper #303 39 places worse
0.8666 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #264 vs paper #303 39 places worse
paper 0.8530 ±0.0020
paper 0.8530 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0136
278
DeepWalk
actual #278 vs paper #295 17 places worse
0.8628 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #278 vs paper #295 17 places worse
paper 0.8570 ±0.0010
paper 0.8570 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0058 Δ today 0.0058
320
MLP
actual #320 vs paper #455 135 places worse
0.7390 ±0.0010
actual #320 vs paper #455 135 places worse
paper 0.7390 ±0.0010
330
Node2Vec
actual #330 vs paper #330
0.8440 ±0.0010
actual #330 vs paper #330
paper 0.8440 ±0.0010

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8440 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0001
342
GMI
actual #342 vs paper #444 102 places worse
0.8422 ±0.0052
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #444 102 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0010
paper 0.7680 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0541 Δ today 0.0742
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
6
GAT
actual #6 vs paper #116 110 places worse
0.9782 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #116 110 places worse
paper 0.9550 ±0.0020
paper 0.9550 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0070 Δ today 0.0232
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #84 75 places worse
0.9774 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #84 75 places worse
paper 0.9570 ±0.0020
paper 0.9570 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0080 Δ today 0.0204
17
SAGE
0.9739 ±0.0018
58
MLP
actual #58 vs paper #216 158 places worse
0.9597 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #216 158 places worse
paper 0.9350 ±0.0010
63
GCA
actual #63 vs paper #63
0.9590 ±0.0020
actual #63 vs paper #63
paper 0.9590 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9590 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0017
70
SGC
0.9580 ±0.0010
This paper
69
BGRL
actual #69 vs paper #69
0.9580 ±0.0040
actual #69 vs paper #69
paper 0.9580 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9580 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0010
104
Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning
0.9560 ±0.0030
This paper
125
MVGRL
actual #125 vs paper #136 11 places worse
0.9544 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #136 11 places worse
paper 0.9530 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9530 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0014
146
GAE
actual #146 vs paper #161 15 places worse
0.9520 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #161 15 places worse
paper 0.9490 ±0.0010
paper 0.9490 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0030
163
DeepWalk
actual #163 vs paper #262 99 places worse
0.9490
best reported
actual #163 vs paper #262 99 places worse
paper 0.9180 ±0.0020
paper 0.9180 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0310
167
DGI
actual #167 vs paper #174 7 places worse
0.9489 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #167 vs paper #174 7 places worse
paper 0.9450 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9450 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0039
174
VGAE
actual #174 vs paper #174
0.9452
best reported
actual #174 vs paper #174
paper 0.9450 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9450 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0002
268
Node2Vec
0.9120 ±0.0010
This paper
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere