Graph Contrastive Learning under Heterophily via Graph Filters

Wenhan Yang, Baharan Mirzasoleiman

Main figure for Graph Contrastive Learning under Heterophily via Graph Filters

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (CL) methods learn node representations in a self-supervised manner by maximizing the similarity between the augmented node representations obtained via a GNN-based encoder. However, CL methods perform poorly on graphs with heterophily, where connected nodes tend to belong to different classes. In this work, we address this problem by proposing an effective graph CL method, namely HLCL, for learning graph representations under heterophily. HLCL first identifies a homophilic and a heterophilic subgraph based on the cosine similarity of node features. It then uses a low-pass and a high-pass graph filter to aggregate representations of nodes connected in the homophilic subgraph and differentiate representations of nodes in the heterophilic subgraph. The final node representations are learned by contrasting both the augmented high-pass filtered views and the augmented low-pass filtered node views. Our extensive experiments show that HLCL outperforms state-of-the-art graph CL methods on benchmark datasets with heterophily, as well as large-scale real-world graphs, by up to 7\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 13 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #610 566 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #610 566 places worse
paper 0.7020 ±0.0090
paper 0.7020 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0923 Δ today 0.1013
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #463 397 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #463 397 places worse
paper 0.7190 ±0.0070
102
GloGNN
actual #102 vs paper #102
0.7740 ±0.0170
actual #102 vs paper #102
paper 0.7740 ±0.0170
paper 0.7740 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.2168
111
H2GCN
actual #111 vs paper #474 363 places worse
0.7711 ±0.0157
best reported
actual #111 vs paper #474 363 places worse
paper 0.7180 ±0.0090
126
MixHop
actual #126 vs paper #735 609 places worse
0.7626 ±0.0295
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #735 609 places worse
paper 0.6640 ±0.0170
136
BGRL
actual #136 vs paper #630 494 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #630 494 places worse
paper 0.6980 ±0.0060
paper 0.6980 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0202 Δ today 0.0620
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #519 318 places worse
0.7450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #519 318 places worse
paper 0.7140 ±0.0100
paper 0.7140 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0086 Δ today 0.0310
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
459
SP-GCL
0.7200 ±0.0040
This paper
458
CPGNN
actual #458 vs paper #458
0.7200 ±0.0050
actual #458 vs paper #458
paper 0.7200 ±0.0050
paper 0.7200 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0259
476
HLCL_Simplified
0.7180 ±0.0140
This paper
557
HGRL
0.7100 ±0.0070
This paper
619
HLCL
0.7010 ±0.0080
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
16
H2GCN
actual #16 vs paper #233 217 places worse
0.9361 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #233 217 places worse
paper 0.8590 ±0.0040
paper 0.8590 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0359 Δ today 0.0771
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #225 207 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #225 207 places worse
paper 0.8640 ±0.0030
70
MixHop
actual #70 vs paper #255 185 places worse
0.8510 ±0.0030
actual #70 vs paper #255 185 places worse
paper 0.8510 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8510 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0430 Δ today 0.0494
85
GloGNN
actual #85 vs paper #85
0.8960 ±0.0040
actual #85 vs paper #85
paper 0.8960 ±0.0040
paper 0.8960 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.1688
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
144
BGRL
actual #144 vs paper #428 284 places worse
0.8830 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #144 vs paper #428 284 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0060
paper 0.8020 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0114 Δ today 0.0810
194
GRACE
actual #194 vs paper #219 25 places worse
0.8670 ±0.0010
actual #194 vs paper #219 25 places worse
paper 0.8670 ±0.0010

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8670 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0025 Δ today 0.0060
204
DGI
actual #204 vs paper #230 26 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #230 26 places worse
paper 0.8600 ±0.0010
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
220
CPGNN
0.8670 ±0.0020
This paper
265
HLCL
0.8450 ±0.0040
This paper
274
HGRL
0.8420 ±0.0020
This paper
559
SP-GCL
0.7920 ±0.0070
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
58
GloGNN
actual #58 vs paper #114 56 places worse
0.3959 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #114 56 places worse
paper 0.3740 ±0.0080
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #278 207 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #278 207 places worse
paper 0.3360 ±0.0080
paper 0.3360 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0480 Δ today 0.0525
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #390 255 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #390 255 places worse
paper 0.2820 ±0.0040
paper 0.2820 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0870
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #371 209 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #371 209 places worse
paper 0.2900 ±0.0100
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)
paper 0.2900 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0679 Δ today 0.0748
208
CPGNN
actual #208 vs paper #208
0.3560 ±0.0090
actual #208 vs paper #208
paper 0.3560 ±0.0090
paper 0.3560 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0318
218
HGRL
0.3540 ±0.0090
This paper
251
GRACE
actual #251 vs paper #251
0.3450 ±0.0110
actual #251 vs paper #251
paper 0.3450 ±0.0110
268
HLCL
0.3400 ±0.0020
This paper
335
DGI
actual #335 vs paper #396 61 places worse
0.3067 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #335 vs paper #396 61 places worse
paper 0.2800 ±0.0140
356
BGRL
actual #356 vs paper #389 33 places worse
0.2986
best reported
actual #356 vs paper #389 33 places worse
paper 0.2830 ±0.0090
376
SP-GCL
actual #376 vs paper #404 28 places worse
0.2894 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #376 vs paper #404 28 places worse
paper 0.2770 ±0.0070
paper 0.2770 ±0.0070 Δ today 0.0124
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere