GraphLearner: Graph Node Clustering with Fully Learnable Augmentation

Xihong Yang, Erxue Min, Ke Liang, Yue Liu, Siwei Wang, Sihang Zhou, Huijun Wu, Xinwang Liu, En Zhu

Main figure for GraphLearner: Graph Node Clustering with Fully Learnable Augmentation

Abstract

Contrastive deep graph clustering (CDGC) leverages the power of contrastive learning to group nodes into different clusters. The quality of contrastive samples is crucial for achieving better performance, making augmentation techniques a key factor in the process. However, the augmentation samples in existing methods are always predefined by human experiences, and agnostic from the downstream task clustering, thus leading to high human resource costs and poor performance. To overcome these limitations, we propose a Graph Node Clustering with Fully Learnable Augmentation, termed GraphLearner. It introduces learnable augmentors to generate high-quality and task-specific augmented samples for CDGC. GraphLearner incorporates two learnable augmentors specifically designed for capturing attribute and structural information. Moreover, we introduce two refinement matrices, including the high-confidence pseudo-label matrix and the cross-view sample similarity matrix, to enhance the reliability of the learned affinity matrix. During the training procedure, we notice the distinct optimization goals for training learnable augmentors and contrastive learning networks. In other words, we should both guarantee the consistency of the embeddings as well as the diversity of the augmented samples. To address this challenge, we propose an adversarial learning mechanism within our method. Besides, we leverage a two-stage training strategy to refine the high-confidence matrices. Extensive experimental results on six benchmark datasets validate the effectiveness of GraphLearner.The code and appendix of GraphLearner are available at https://github.com/xihongyang1999/GraphLearner on Github.

Proposed method: GraphLearner

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Hypergraph Benchmarks

AMAP

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

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GANN
0.9405 ±0.0037
2
GPRGNN
0.9308 ±0.0026
3
GAT
0.9238 ±0.0014
14
GCN
0.8115 ±0.0105
18
GraphLearner
0.7302 ±0.0234
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
0.7103 ±0.0064
This paper
25
AFGRL
0.6999 ±0.0034
This paper
27
DEAGC
0.6987 ±0.0054
This paper
31
SDCN
actual #31 vs paper #46 15 places worse
0.6805 ±0.0181
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #46 15 places worse
paper 0.5066 ±0.0149
paper 0.5066 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.1739
34
SUBLIME
actual #34 vs paper #55 21 places worse
0.6500 ±0.0700
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #55 21 places worse
paper 0.1597 ±0.0153
paper 0.1597 ±0.0153 Δ today 0.4903
41
AutoSSL
0.5447 ±0.0083
This paper
43
GCA
0.5359 ±0.0057
This paper
50
MVGRL
actual #50 vs paper #52 2 places worse
0.4600
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #52 2 places worse
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550
paper 0.3288 ±0.0550 Δ at pub 0.0985 Δ today 0.1312
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
2
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
3
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
17
GraphLearner
0.5277 ±0.0261
This paper
20
AGC-DRR
actual #20 vs paper #33 13 places worse
0.5197 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #33 13 places worse
paper 0.3518 ±0.0032
paper 0.3518 ±0.0032 Δ today 0.1679
22
SDCN
actual #22 vs paper #29 7 places worse
0.5066 ±0.0149
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #29 7 places worse
paper 0.4559 ±0.0354

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4559 ±0.0354 Δ at pub 0.0507
23
DEAGC
0.5033 ±0.0064
This paper
24
MVGRL
actual #24 vs paper #31 7 places worse
0.3944 ±0.0219
actual #24 vs paper #31 7 places worse
paper 0.3944 ±0.0219

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3944 ±0.0219 Δ at pub 0.0656 Δ today 0.0956
29
SUBLIME
0.4619 ±0.0087
This paper
30
DCRN
0.4481 ±0.0087
This paper
32
AFGRL
0.3652 ±0.0089
This paper
33
GCA
0.3572 ±0.0028
This paper
34
AutoSSL
0.3494 ±0.0087
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GraphLearner
0.7540 ±0.0088
This paper
2
SCGDN
0.7449 ±0.0026
3
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
5
SDCN
actual #5 vs paper #21 16 places worse
0.7125 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #21 16 places worse
paper 0.4645 ±0.0590
paper 0.4645 ±0.0590 Δ at pub 0.2480
7
MVGRL
actual #7 vs paper #28 21 places worse
0.7047 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #28 21 places worse
paper 0.2964 ±0.0049
paper 0.2964 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.4083
10
DCRN
0.6740 ±0.0035
This paper
13
GCA
0.5371 ±0.0034
This paper
15
DEAGC
0.5223 ±0.0003
This paper
21
AFGRL
0.4653 ±0.0057
This paper
22
SUBLIME
0.4400 ±0.0062
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
0.4233 ±0.0051
This paper
28
AutoSSL
0.3484 ±0.0015
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
2
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
3
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
9
GraphLearner
0.5753 ±0.0067
This paper
12
SDCN
actual #12 vs paper #27 15 places worse
0.5066 ±0.0149
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #27 15 places worse
paper 0.3342 ±0.0310
paper 0.3342 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.1724
13
GCA
0.4822 ±0.0033
This paper
16
DCRN
0.4706 ±0.0066
This paper
17
MVGRL
actual #17 vs paper #28 11 places worse
0.4700 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #28 11 places worse
paper 0.2535 ±0.0075
paper 0.2535 ±0.0075 Δ at pub 0.0753 Δ today 0.2165
23
SUBLIME
actual #23 vs paper #27 4 places worse
0.4200 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #27 4 places worse
paper 0.3231 ±0.0097
paper 0.3231 ±0.0097 Δ today 0.0969
24
AGC-DRR
0.3520 ±0.0017
This paper
26
DEAGC
0.3472 ±0.0016
This paper
28
AFGRL
0.3053 ±0.0147
This paper
31
AutoSSL
0.2182 ±0.0098
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere