Graph Contrastive Learning with Implicit Augmentations

Huidong Liang, Xingjian Du, Bilei Zhu, Zejun Ma, Ke Chen, Junbin Gao

Main figure for Graph Contrastive Learning with Implicit Augmentations

Abstract

Existing graph contrastive learning methods rely on augmentation techniques based on random perturbations (e.g., randomly adding or dropping edges and nodes). Nevertheless, altering certain edges or nodes can unexpectedly change the graph characteristics, and choosing the optimal perturbing ratio for each dataset requires onerous manual tuning. In this paper, we introduce Implicit Graph Contrastive Learning (iGCL), which utilizes augmentations in the latent space learned from a Variational Graph Auto-Encoder by reconstructing graph topological structure. Importantly, instead of explicitly sampling augmentations from latent distributions, we further propose an upper bound for the expected contrastive loss to improve the efficiency of our learning algorithm. Thus, graph semantics can be preserved within the augmentations in an intelligent way without arbitrary manual design or prior human knowledge. Experimental results on both graph-level and node-level tasks show that the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance compared to other benchmarks, where ablation studies in the end demonstrate the effectiveness of modules in iGCL.

Proposed method: iGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 6 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
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
paper 0.8150 ±0.0020
paper 0.8150 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0567 Δ today 0.0854
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0590 Δ today 0.0597
134
GRACE
actual #134 vs paper #389 255 places worse
0.8720 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #134 vs paper #389 255 places worse
paper 0.8330 ±0.0040
paper 0.8330 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0032 Δ today 0.0390
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #424 283 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #424 283 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070
177
DGI
actual #177 vs paper #486 309 places worse
0.8630 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #177 vs paper #486 309 places worse
paper 0.8230 ±0.0060
218
GMI
actual #218 vs paper #424 206 places worse
0.8526 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #218 vs paper #424 206 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0030
352
iGCL
0.8360 ±0.0060
This paper
415
GCA
actual #415 vs paper #415
0.8310 ±0.0030
actual #415 vs paper #415
paper 0.8310 ±0.0030
paper 0.8310 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0103
630
VGAE
actual #630 vs paper #756 126 places worse
0.8059 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #630 vs paper #756 126 places worse
paper 0.7630 ±0.0020
paper 0.7630 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0429
654
GAE
actual #654 vs paper #776 122 places worse
0.8011 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #654 vs paper #776 122 places worse
paper 0.7490 ±0.0040
paper 0.7490 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0521
724
MLP
0.7768
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (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