GIMM: InfoMin-Max for Automated Graph Contrastive Learning

Xin Xiong, F. Shen, Xiangyu Wang, Jian Zhao School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, School of Materials Science, Engineering

Main figure for GIMM: InfoMin-Max for Automated Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) shows great potential in unsupervised graph representation learning. Data augmentation plays a vital role in GCL, and its optimal choice heavily depends on the downstream task. Many GCL methods with automated data augmentation face the risk of insufficient information as they fail to preserve the essential information necessary for the downstream task. To solve this problem, we propose nfo in- ax for automated raph contrastive learning (GIMM), which prevents GCL from encoding redundant information and losing essential information. GIMM consists of two major modules: (1) automated graph view generator, which acquires the approximation of InfoMin’s optimal views through adversarial training without requiring task-relevant information; (2) view comparison, which learns an excellent encoder by applying InfoMax to view representations. To the best of our knowledge, GIMM is the first method that combines the InfoMin and InfoMax principles in GCL. Besides, GIMM introduces randomness to augmentation, thus stabilizing the model against perturbations. Extensive experiments on unsupervised and semi-supervised learning for node and graph classification demonstrate the superiority of our GIMM over state-of-the-art GCL methods with automated and manual data augmentation.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 6 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
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
148
GIMM
0.9352 ±0.0033
This paper
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 ±0.0016
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 ±0.0007
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 ±0.0022
316
AutoGCL
actual #316 vs paper #344 28 places worse
0.9225 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #316 vs paper #344 28 places worse
paper 0.9198 ±0.0058

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9198 ±0.0058 Δ today 0.0027
347
AD-GCL
actual #347 vs paper #479 132 places worse
0.9192 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #347 vs paper #479 132 places worse
paper 0.8875 ±0.0092
paper 0.8875 ±0.0092 Δ today 0.0317
384
JOAO-v2
actual #384 vs paper #399 15 places worse
0.9139 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #384 vs paper #399 15 places worse
paper 0.9115 ±0.0055

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9115 ±0.0055 Δ today 0.0024
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
408
GMI
actual #408 vs paper #417 9 places worse
0.9081 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #408 vs paper #417 9 places worse
paper 0.9068 ±0.0017

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9068 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0013
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
61
GIMM
0.9591 ±0.0010
This paper
63
GCA
actual #63 vs paper #80 17 places worse
0.9590 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #80 17 places worse
paper 0.9573 ±0.0003

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9573 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0017
97
AD-GCL
actual #97 vs paper #172 75 places worse
0.9563 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #97 vs paper #172 75 places worse
paper 0.9457 ±0.0009
paper 0.9457 ±0.0009 Δ today 0.0106
125
MVGRL
actual #125 vs paper #134 9 places worse
0.9544 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #134 9 places worse
paper 0.9533 ±0.0003

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9533 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0011
167
DGI
actual #167 vs paper #174 7 places worse
0.9489 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #167 vs paper #174 7 places worse
paper 0.9451 ±0.0052

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9451 ±0.0052 Δ at pub 0.0006 Δ today 0.0038

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
88
GIMM
0.9157 ±0.0057
This paper
138
GCA
0.9060 ±0.0076
This paper
199
MVGRL
actual #199 vs paper #213 14 places worse
0.8993 ±0.0616
best reported
actual #199 vs paper #213 14 places worse
paper 0.8970 ±0.0110

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8970 ±0.0110 Δ today 0.0023
257
InfoGraph
actual #257 vs paper #272 15 places worse
0.8930 ±0.0514
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #272 15 places worse
paper 0.8901 ±0.0113
best at pub: Graph Contrastive Learning Automated (ICML 2021)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8901 ±0.0113 Δ today 0.0029
302
AutoGCL
actual #302 vs paper #302
0.8864 ±0.0108
actual #302 vs paper #302
paper 0.8864 ±0.0108
paper 0.8864 ±0.0108 Δ at pub 0.1034
354
GraphCL
actual #354 vs paper #396 42 places worse
0.8766 ±0.0103
best reported
actual #354 vs paper #396 42 places worse
paper 0.8680 ±0.0134

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8680 ±0.0134 Δ at pub 0.0086
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
104
GraphCL
actual #104 vs paper #447 343 places worse
0.8250 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #447 343 places worse
paper 0.7316 ±0.0290
paper 0.7316 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0934
133
AutoGCL
actual #133 vs paper #440 307 places worse
0.7375 ±0.0225
actual #133 vs paper #440 307 places worse
paper 0.7375 ±0.0225

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7375 ±0.0225 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0825
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
146
JOAOv2
actual #146 vs paper #417 271 places worse
0.8170 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #417 271 places worse
paper 0.7486 ±0.0039
paper 0.7486 ±0.0039 Δ at pub 0.0684
375
GIMM-Fit
0.7643 ±0.0050
This paper
390
GIMM-Un-Fit-A
0.7613 ±0.0059
This paper
409
AD-GCL
0.7518 ±0.0031
This paper
430
GIMM-Un-Fit
0.7432 ±0.0019
This paper
502
GCA
0.6873 ±0.0236
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
32
JOAOv2
actual #32 vs paper #240 208 places worse
0.8216 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #240 208 places worse
paper 0.7553 ±0.0018
paper 0.7553 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0663
80
GraphCL
actual #80 vs paper #240 160 places worse
0.8108 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #80 vs paper #240 160 places worse
paper 0.7550 ±0.0215
paper 0.7550 ±0.0215 Δ at pub 0.0558
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
170
GIMM-Un-Fit-A
0.7850 ±0.0048
This paper
201
GIMM-Un-Fit
0.7721 ±0.0047
This paper
204
AutoGCL
actual #204 vs paper #204
0.7716 ±0.0148
actual #204 vs paper #204
paper 0.7716 ±0.0148
paper 0.7716 ±0.0148 Δ at pub 0.0266
233
AD-GCL
0.7582 ±0.0026
This paper
238
GIMM-Fit
0.7556 ±0.0030
This paper
259
GCA
0.7432 ±0.0230
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SpeGCL
0.5944 ±0.0018
2
GIN
0.5760 ±0.0150
3
LAMP-Soft
0.5738 ±0.0041
6
AutoGCL
actual #6 vs paper #20 14 places worse
0.5675 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #20 14 places worse
paper 0.4991 ±0.0270
paper 0.4991 ±0.0270 Δ today 0.0684
11
GraphCL
actual #11 vs paper #22 11 places worse
0.5600 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #22 11 places worse
paper 0.4809 ±0.0174
16
AD-GCL
actual #16 vs paper #19 3 places worse
0.5490 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #19 3 places worse
paper 0.5349 ±0.0028
17
GIMM-Un-Fit
0.5396 ±0.0051
This paper
20
JOAOv2
0.5271 ±0.0028
This paper
26
GraphSAGE
0.4380 ±0.0320
32
GCA
0.3295 ±0.1089
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