AAAI 2022

Hard Sample Aware Network for Contrastive Deep Graph Clustering [5]

Yue Liu, Xihong Yang, Sihang Zhou, Xinwang Liu, Zhen Wang, K. Liang, Wenxuan Tu, Liangjun Li, Jingcan Duan, Cancan Chen

Main figure for Hard Sample Aware Network for Contrastive Deep Graph Clustering [5]

Abstract

Contrastive deep graph clustering, which aims to divide nodes into disjoint groups via contrastive mechanisms, is a challenging research spot. Among the recent works, hard sample mining-based algorithms have achieved great attention for their promising performance. However, we find that the existing hard sample mining methods have two problems as follows. 1) In the hardness measurement, the important structural information is overlooked for similarity calculation, degrading the representativeness of the selected hard negative samples. 2) Previous works merely focus on the hard negative sample pairs while neglecting the hard positive sample pairs. Nevertheless, samples within the same cluster but with low similarity should also be carefully learned. To solve the problems, we propose a novel contrastive deep graph clustering method dubbed Hard Sample Aware Network (HSAN) by introducing a comprehensive similarity measure criterion and a general dynamic sample weighing strategy. Concretely, in our algorithm, the similarities between samples are calculated by considering both the attribute embeddings and the structure embeddings, better revealing sample relationships and assisting hardness measurement. Moreover, under the guidance of the carefully collected high-confidence clustering information, our proposed weight modulating function will first recognize the positive and negative samples and then dynamically up-weight the hard sample pairs while down-weighting the easy ones. In this way, our method can mine not only the hard negative samples but also the hard positive sample, thus improving the discriminative capability of the samples further. Extensive experiments and analyses demonstrate the superiority and effectiveness of our proposed method. The source code of HSAN is shared at https://github.com/yueliu1999/HSAN and a collection (papers, codes and, datasets) of deep graph clustering is shared at https://github.com/yueliu1999/Awesome-Deep-Graph-Clustering on Github.

Proposed method: HSAN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 9 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
15
DCRN
actual #15 vs paper #24 9 places worse
0.7966 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #24 9 places worse
paper 0.7086 ±0.0018
paper 0.7086 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0880
16
DFCN
actual #16 vs paper #23 7 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #23 7 places worse
paper 0.7125 ±0.0031
paper 0.7125 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0475
22
HSAN
0.7203 ±0.0046
This paper
23
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
0.7103 ±0.0064
This paper
25
AFGRL
0.6999 ±0.0034
This paper
26
DAEGC
actual #26 vs paper #26
0.6987 ±0.0054
actual #26 vs paper #26
paper 0.6987 ±0.0054

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6987 ±0.0054
30
MGAE
0.6808 ±0.0176
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
35
ARGA
actual #35 vs paper #35
0.6483 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #35
paper 0.6430 ±0.0195

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6430 ±0.0195 Δ at pub 0.0053
41
AutoSSL
0.5447 ±0.0083
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
51
GDCL
0.3837 ±0.0029
This paper
53
ProGCL
0.3197 ±0.0044
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
2
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
3
AGE
actual #3 vs paper #20 17 places worse
0.7174 ±0.0093
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #20 17 places worse
paper 0.4554 ±0.0040
paper 0.4554 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.2620
4
DFCN
actual #4 vs paper #21 17 places worse
0.7125 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #21 17 places worse
paper 0.4295 ±0.0004
paper 0.4295 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.2830
5
DAEGC
actual #5 vs paper #25 20 places worse
0.6987 ±0.0054
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #25 20 places worse
paper 0.3472 ±0.0016
paper 0.3472 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.3515
7
ARGA
actual #7 vs paper #11 4 places worse
0.6430 ±0.0195
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #11 4 places worse
paper 0.5275 ±0.0007
paper 0.5275 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.1155
10
HSAN
0.5726 ±0.0028
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
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
21
MGAE
0.4308 ±0.0326
This paper
22
ProGCL
0.4254 ±0.0045
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
actual #24 vs paper #24
0.3520 ±0.0017
actual #24 vs paper #24
paper 0.3520 ±0.0017

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3520 ±0.0017
28
AFGRL
0.3053 ±0.0147
This paper
29
GDCL
0.2502 ±0.0021
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