Multi-View Graph Representation Learning Beyond Homophily

Bei Lin, You Li, Ning Gui, Zhuopeng Xu, Zhiwu Yu

Main figure for Multi-View Graph Representation Learning Beyond Homophily

Abstract

Unsupervised graph representation learning(GRL) aims to distill diverse graph information into task-agnostic embeddings without label supervision. Due to a lack of support from labels, recent representation learning methods usually adopt self-supervised learning, and embeddings are learned by solving a handcrafted auxiliary task(so-called pretext task). However, partially due to the irregular non-Euclidean data in graphs, the pretext tasks are generally designed under homophily assumptions and cornered in the low-frequency signals, which results in significant loss of other signals, especially high-frequency signals widespread in graphs with heterophily. Motivated by this limitation, we propose a multi-view perspective and the usage of diverse pretext tasks to capture different signals in graphs into embeddings. A novel framework, denoted as Multi-view Graph Encoder(MVGE), is proposed, and a set of key designs are identified. More specifically, a set of new pretext tasks are designed to encode different types of signals, and a straightforward operation is propxwosed to maintain both the commodity and personalization in both the attribute and the structural levels. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world network datasets show that the node representations learned with MVGE achieve significant performance improvements in three different downstream tasks, especially on graphs with heterophily. Source code is available at.

Proposed method: MVGE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 3 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
0.8033 ±0.0088
87
MVGRL
actual #87 vs paper #810 723 places worse
0.7808 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #810 723 places worse
paper 0.6264 ±0.0441
167
MVGE
0.7535 ±0.0095
This paper
278
MERIT
actual #278 vs paper #679 401 places worse
0.7350 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #278 vs paper #679 401 places worse
paper 0.6813 ±0.0023
paper 0.6813 ±0.0023 Δ today 0.0537
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
445
PairE
0.7214 ±0.0253
This paper
528
SAGE-U
0.7134 ±0.0432
This paper
655
DGI-gcn
0.6894 ±0.0910
This paper
692
DeepWalk
actual #692 vs paper #853 161 places worse
0.6785 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #692 vs paper #853 161 places worse
paper 0.5602 ±0.1014

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5602 ±0.1014 Δ at pub 0.1183
739
GAE
actual #739 vs paper #853 114 places worse
0.6639 ±0.0024
best reported
actual #739 vs paper #853 114 places worse
paper 0.5632 ±0.0789

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5632 ±0.0789 Δ at pub 0.1007
828
ARVGE
0.6042 ±0.1001
This paper
872
P-GNN
0.4692 ±0.0604
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
196
MVGRL
actual #196 vs paper #437 241 places worse
0.8725 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #196 vs paper #437 241 places worse
paper 0.8012 ±0.0171
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
213
MVGE
0.8682 ±0.0085
This paper
223
DeepWalk
actual #223 vs paper #474 251 places worse
0.8652 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #474 251 places worse
paper 0.7980 ±0.0366
236
PairE
0.8573 ±0.0234
This paper
256
MERIT
0.8505 ±0.0010
This paper
285
SAGE-U
0.8382 ±0.0301
This paper
298
DGI-gcn
0.8311 ±0.0150
This paper
304
GAE
actual #304 vs paper #334 30 places worse
0.8189 ±0.0187
actual #304 vs paper #334 30 places worse
paper 0.8189 ±0.0187
paper 0.8189 ±0.0187 Δ at pub 0.0361
827
ARVGE
0.7150 ±0.0318
This paper
846
P-GNN
0.6908 ±0.0242
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
222
MVGE
0.8127 ±0.1005
This paper
278
DGI-gcn
0.7782 ±0.1831
This paper
351
MVGRL
actual #351 vs paper #470 119 places worse
0.7301 ±0.0552
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #470 119 places worse
paper 0.6222 ±0.1833

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6222 ±0.1833 Δ at pub 0.0016 Δ today 0.1079
425
MERIT
0.6690 ±0.1309
This paper
481
PairE
0.6151 ±0.0486
This paper
486
SAGE-U
0.6127 ±0.1193
This paper
526
GAE
actual #526 vs paper #526
0.5909 ±0.1626
actual #526 vs paper #526
paper 0.5909 ±0.1626

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5909 ±0.1626 Δ at pub 0.0031
545
P-GNN
0.5780 ±0.0678
This paper
580
ARVGE
0.5033 ±0.2820
This paper
595
DeepWalk
actual #595 vs paper #595
0.4700 ±0.2928
actual #595 vs paper #595
paper 0.4700 ±0.2928

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4700 ±0.2928 Δ at pub 0.0051
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
187
MVGE
0.7889 ±0.0919
This paper
314
PairE
0.6673 ±0.0777
This paper
340
MVGRL
actual #340 vs paper #391 51 places worse
0.6430
best reported
actual #340 vs paper #391 51 places worse
paper 0.5885 ±0.1679

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5885 ±0.1679 Δ at pub 0.0545
354
GAE
actual #354 vs paper #354
0.6309 ±0.0987
actual #354 vs paper #354
paper 0.6309 ±0.0987

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6309 ±0.0987 Δ at pub 0.0424
434
ARVGE
0.5433 ±0.3027
This paper
443
P-GNN
0.5389 ±0.1117
This paper
500
DeepWalk
actual #500 vs paper #500
0.4867 ±0.2784
actual #500 vs paper #500
paper 0.4867 ±0.2784

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4867 ±0.2784 Δ at pub 0.0712
506
SAGE-U
0.4818 ±0.1361
This paper
557
DGI-gcn
0.3873 ±0.1193
This paper
570
MERIT
0.3046 ±0.0479
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere