Self-Contrastive Graph Diffusion Network

Yixuan Ma, Kun Zhan

Main figure for Self-Contrastive Graph Diffusion Network

Abstract

Contrastive learning has been proven to be a successful approach in graph self-supervised learning. Augmentation techniques and sampling strategies are crucial in contrastive learning, but in most existing works, augmentation techniques require careful design, and their sampling strategies can only capture a small amount of intrinsic supervision information. Additionally, the existing methods require complex designs to obtain two different representations of the data. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel framework called the Self-Contrastive Graph Diffusion Network (SCGDN). Our framework consists of two main components: the Attentional Module (AttM) and the Diffusion Module (DiFM). AttM aggregates higher-order structure and feature information to get an excellent embedding, while DiFM balances the state of each node in the graph through Laplacian diffusion learning and allows the cooperative evolution of adjacency and feature information in the graph. Unlike existing methodologies, SCGDN is an augmentation-free approach that avoids "sampling bias" and semantic drift, without the need for pre-training. We conduct a high-quality sampling of samples based on structure and feature information. If two nodes are neighbors, they are considered positive samples of each other. If two disconnected nodes are also unrelated on $k$NN graph, they are considered negative samples for each other. The contrastive objective reasonably uses our proposed sampling strategies, and the redundancy reduction term minimizes redundant information in the embedding and can well retain more discriminative information. In this novel framework, the graph self-contrastive learning paradigm gives expression to a powerful force. SCGDN effectively balances between preserving high-order structure information and avoiding overfitting. The results manifest that SCGDN can consistently generate outperformance over both the contrastive methods and the classical methods.

Proposed method: SCGDN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 6 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
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
17
SCGDN
0.7527 ±0.0018
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
0.7103 ±0.0064
This paper
25
AFGRL
0.6999 ±0.0034
This paper
26
DAEGC
0.6987 ±0.0054
This paper
30
MGAE
0.6808 ±0.0176
This paper
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
GraphLearner
0.7540 ±0.0088
2
SCGDN
0.7449 ±0.0026
This paper
3
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
7
MVGRL
actual #7 vs paper #28 21 places worse
0.7047 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #28 21 places worse
paper 0.2964 ±0.0049
paper 0.2964 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.4083
8
DAEGC
actual #8 vs paper #14 6 places worse
0.6987 ±0.0054
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #14 6 places worse
paper 0.5223 ±0.0003
paper 0.5223 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.1764
11
ProGCL
0.5608 ±0.0089
This paper
17
DFCN
0.5090 ±0.0012
This paper
18
MGAE
0.5083 ±0.0323
This paper
21
AFGRL
0.4653 ±0.0057
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
0.4233 ±0.0051
This paper
25
GDCL
0.3994 ±0.0057
This paper
28
AutoSSL
0.3484 ±0.0015
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SCAGC
0.7277 ±0.0016
2
SCGC
0.7222 ±0.0097
3
AGE
0.7174 ±0.0093
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
8
SCGDN
0.5763 ±0.0010
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
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.4308 ±0.0326
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.4308 ±0.0326

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4308 ±0.0326
22
ProGCL
0.4254 ±0.0045
This paper
24
AGC-DRR
0.3520 ±0.0017
This paper
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