AAAI 2022

MA-GCL: Model Augmentation Tricks for Graph Contrastive Learning

Xumeng Gong, Cheng Yang, Chuan Shi

Main figure for MA-GCL: Model Augmentation Tricks for Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Contrastive learning (CL), which can extract the information shared between different contrastive views, has become a popular paradigm for vision representation learning. Inspired by the success in computer vision, recent work introduces CL into graph modeling, dubbed as graph contrastive learning (GCL). However, generating contrastive views in graphs is more challenging than that in images, since we have little prior knowledge on how to significantly augment a graph without changing its labels. We argue that typical data augmentation techniques (e.g., edge dropping) in GCL cannot generate diverse enough contrastive views to filter out noises. Moreover, previous GCL methods employ two view encoders with exactly the same neural architecture and tied parameters, which further harms the diversity of augmented views. To address this limitation, we propose a novel paradigm named model augmented GCL (MA-GCL), which will focus on manipulating the architectures of view encoders instead of perturbing graph inputs. Specifically, we present three easy-to-implement model augmentation tricks for GCL, namely asymmetric, random and shuffling, which can respectively help alleviate high-frequency noises, enrich training instances and bring safer augmentations. All three tricks are compatible with typical data augmentations. Experimental results show that MA-GCL can achieve state-of-the-art performance on node classification benchmarks by applying the three tricks on a simple base model. Extensive studies also validate our motivation and the effectiveness of each trick. (Code, data and appendix are available at.)

Proposed method: MA-GCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 7 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 #275 273 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #275 273 places worse
paper 0.9256 ±0.0040
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #292 284 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #292 284 places worse
paper 0.9242 ±0.0020
114
MA-GCL
0.9380 ±0.0010
This paper
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #275 103 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #275 103 places worse
paper 0.9257 ±0.0030
paper 0.9257 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0080
186
CCA-SSG
actual #186 vs paper #289 103 places worse
0.9325 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #186 vs paper #289 103 places worse
paper 0.9244 ±0.0010
paper 0.9244 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0081
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #277 86 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #277 86 places worse
paper 0.9253 ±0.0020
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #324 121 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #324 121 places worse
paper 0.9215 ±0.0020
paper 0.9215 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0065 Δ today 0.0098
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #359 153 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #359 153 places worse
paper 0.9174
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #366 153 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #366 153 places worse
paper 0.9161 ±0.0020
355
ARIEL
actual #355 vs paper #377 22 places worse
0.9180 ±0.0024
best reported
actual #355 vs paper #377 22 places worse
paper 0.9143 ±0.0020
paper 0.9143 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0037
383
SimGRACE
0.9139 ±0.0040
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
396
Base Model
0.9119 ±0.0030
This paper
475
COLES
0.8900 ±0.0050
This paper
#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
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #67 55 places worse
0.9514 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #67 55 places worse
paper 0.9303 ±0.0030
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.9303 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0057 Δ today 0.0211
21
GAT
actual #21 vs paper #107 86 places worse
0.9437 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #107 86 places worse
paper 0.9231 ±0.0020
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.9231 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0149 Δ today 0.0206
24
MA-GCL
0.9419 ±0.0010
This paper
43
DGI
actual #43 vs paper #114 71 places worse
0.9350 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #114 71 places worse
paper 0.9215 ±0.0060
paper 0.9215 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0135
46
SimGRACE
0.9345 ±0.0040
This paper
48
CCA-SSG
0.9337 ±0.0020
This paper
49
ARIEL
0.9335
This paper
51
GCA
actual #51 vs paper #63 12 places worse
0.9332 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #63 12 places worse
paper 0.9310
53
BGRL
actual #53 vs paper #68 15 places worse
0.9331 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #68 15 places worse
paper 0.9301 ±0.0020
paper 0.9301 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0030
69
GRACE
actual #69 vs paper #82 13 places worse
0.9293
actual #69 vs paper #82 13 places worse
paper 0.9293

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9293 Δ at pub 0.0013 Δ today 0.0008
87
Base Model
0.9286 ±0.0030
This paper
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
99
COLES
0.9265 ±0.0010
This paper
116
MVGRL
0.9211 ±0.0010
This paper

Other Graph Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MA-GCL
0.8883 ±0.0030
This paper
2
CCA-SSG
0.8842 ±0.0030
This paper
3
ARIEL
0.8827 ±0.0020
This paper
4
BGRL
0.8823 ±0.0030
This paper
5
GCA
0.8785 ±0.0030
This paper
6
Base Model
0.8765 ±0.0020
This paper
7
MVGRL
0.8752 ±0.0010
This paper
8
GRACE
0.8746 ±0.0020
This paper
9
GAT
0.8693 ±0.0030
This paper
10
GCN
0.8651 ±0.0050
This paper
11
SimGRACE
0.8604 ±0.0020
This paper
12
DGI
0.8395 ±0.0050
This paper
14
COLES
0.7964
This paper
33
GIN
0.4916 ±0.0102
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