Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning?

Jintang Li, Wangbin Sun, Ruofan Wu, Yuchang Zhu, Liang Chen, Zibin Zheng

Main figure for Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning?

Abstract

Oversmoothing is a common phenomenon observed in graph neural networks (GNNs), in which an increase in the network depth leads to a deterioration in their performance. Graph contrastive learning (GCL) is emerging as a promising way of leveraging vast unlabeled graph data. As a marriage between GNNs and contrastive learning, it remains unclear whether GCL inherits the same oversmoothing defect from GNNs. This work undertakes a fundamental analysis of GCL from the perspective of oversmoothing on the first hand. We demonstrate empirically that increasing network depth in GCL also leads to oversmoothing in their deep representations, and surprisingly, the shallow ones. We refer to this phenomenon in GCL as `long-range starvation', wherein lower layers in deep networks suffer from degradation due to the lack of sufficient guidance from supervision. Based on our findings, we present BlockGCL, a remarkably simple yet effective blockwise training framework to prevent GCL from notorious oversmoothing. Without bells and whistles, BlockGCL consistently improves robustness and stability for well-established GCL methods with increasing numbers of layers on several real-world graph benchmarks.

Proposed method: BlockGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #184 163 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #184 163 places worse
paper 0.8610 ±0.0020
paper 0.8610 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0107 Δ today 0.0394
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #161 117 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #161 117 places worse
paper 0.8670 ±0.0070
paper 0.8670 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0220 Δ today 0.0227
90
BlockGCL
0.8810 ±0.0010
This paper
98
SUGRL
0.8800 ±0.0010
This paper
130
BGRL
actual #130 vs paper #130
0.8730 ±0.0010
actual #130 vs paper #130
paper 0.8730 ±0.0010
paper 0.8730 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0586
134
GRACE
actual #134 vs paper #134
0.8720 ±0.0020
actual #134 vs paper #134
paper 0.8720 ±0.0020
paper 0.8720 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0358
177
DGI
actual #177 vs paper #177
0.8630 ±0.0020
actual #177 vs paper #177
paper 0.8630 ±0.0020
181
GGD
0.8620 ±0.0020
This paper
248
CCA-SSG
0.8460 ±0.0070
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #77 42 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #77 42 places worse
paper 0.7850 ±0.0040
paper 0.7850 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0230
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #140 96 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #140 96 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0040
paper 0.7590 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0353 Δ today 0.0443
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
67
BlockGCL
0.7890 ±0.0060
This paper
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #66
0.7890 ±0.0020
actual #66 vs paper #66
paper 0.7890 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7890 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0008
100
SUGRL
0.7760 ±0.0040
This paper
136
BGRL
actual #136 vs paper #136
0.7600 ±0.0020
actual #136 vs paper #136
paper 0.7600 ±0.0020
paper 0.7600 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0418
158
GGD
0.7550 ±0.0010
This paper
165
CCA-SSG
0.7540 ±0.0100
This paper
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #201
0.7450 ±0.0010
actual #201 vs paper #201
paper 0.7450 ±0.0010
paper 0.7450 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0224
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #153 135 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #153 135 places worse
paper 0.8820 ±0.0050
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #213 193 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #213 193 places worse
paper 0.8680 ±0.0030
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
126
BlockGCL
0.8860 ±0.0020
This paper
136
CCA-SSG
0.8840 ±0.0060
This paper
144
BGRL
actual #144 vs paper #144
0.8830 ±0.0010
actual #144 vs paper #144
paper 0.8830 ±0.0010
paper 0.8830 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0696
154
SUGRL
0.8820 ±0.0020
This paper
194
GRACE
actual #194 vs paper #194
0.8730 ±0.0010
actual #194 vs paper #194
paper 0.8730 ±0.0010
paper 0.8730 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0060
204
DGI
actual #204 vs paper #226 22 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #226 22 places worse
paper 0.8620 ±0.0010
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
275
GGD
0.8420 ±0.0010
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #269 267 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #269 267 places worse
paper 0.9260 ±0.0040
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #294 286 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #294 286 places worse
paper 0.9240 ±0.0020
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #190 18 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #190 18 places worse
paper 0.9320 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9320 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0017
179
BlockGCL
0.9330 ±0.0010
This paper
186
CCA-SSG
actual #186 vs paper #205 19 places worse
0.9325 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #186 vs paper #205 19 places worse
paper 0.9310 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9310 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0015
194
SUGRL
actual #194 vs paper #194
0.9320 ±0.0040
actual #194 vs paper #194
paper 0.9320 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9320 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0013
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 0.9220 ±0.0020
paper 0.9220 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0093
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 0.9160 ±0.0020
229
GGD
actual #229 vs paper #229
0.9290 ±0.0020
actual #229 vs paper #229
paper 0.9290 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9290 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0040
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #270 268 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #270 268 places worse
paper 0.8650 ±0.0050
paper 0.8650 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0135 Δ today 0.0762
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #256 253 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #256 253 places worse
paper 0.8690 ±0.0030
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #81 2 places worse
0.9034 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #81 2 places worse
paper 0.9030 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9030 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0004
93
GGD
actual #93 vs paper #209 116 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #93 vs paper #209 116 places worse
paper 0.8800 ±0.0010
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #276 137 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #276 137 places worse
paper 0.8630 ±0.0030
paper 0.8630 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0323 Δ today 0.0323
143
BlockGCL
0.8940 ±0.0010
This paper
159
CCA-SSG
actual #159 vs paper #171 12 places worse
0.8896 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #171 12 places worse
paper 0.8870 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8870 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0026
162
SUGRL
actual #162 vs paper #163 1 place worse
0.8893 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #163 1 place worse
paper 0.8890 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8890 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0003
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #350 140 places worse
0.8798 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #350 140 places worse
paper 0.8400 ±0.0050
320
MLP
0.8463
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