ICML 2023

Perfect Alignment May be Poisonous to Graph Contrastive Learning

Jingyu Liu, Huayi Tang, Yong Liu

Main figure for Perfect Alignment May be Poisonous to Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) aims to learn node representations by aligning positive pairs and separating negative ones. However, few of researchers have focused on the inner law behind specific augmentations used in graph-based learning. What kind of augmentation will help downstream performance, how does contrastive learning actually influence downstream tasks, and why the magnitude of augmentation matters so much? This paper seeks to address these questions by establishing a connection between augmentation and downstream performance. Our findings reveal that GCL contributes to downstream tasks mainly by separating different classes rather than gathering nodes of the same class. So perfect alignment and augmentation overlap which draw all intra-class samples the same can not fully explain the success of contrastive learning. Therefore, in order to understand how augmentation aids the contrastive learning process, we conduct further investigations into the generalization, finding that perfect alignment that draw positive pair the same could help contrastive loss but is poisonous to generalization, as a result, perfect alignment may not lead to best downstream performance, so specifically designed augmentation is needed to achieve appropriate alignment performance and improve downstream accuracy. We further analyse the result by information theory and graph spectrum theory and propose two simple but effective methods to verify the theories. The two methods could be easily applied to various GCL algorithms and extensive experiments are conducted to prove its effectiveness. The code is available at https://github.com/somebodyhh1/GRACEIS

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 5 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
184
Supervised GCN
0.9328 ±0.0003
This paper
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #364 173 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #364 173 places worse
paper 0.9167 ±0.0038
200
Supervised GAT
0.9317 ±0.0005
This paper
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #396 193 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #396 193 places worse
paper 0.9117 ±0.0015
paper 0.9117 ±0.0015 Δ at pub 0.0163 Δ today 0.0196
339
GCA+S
0.9202 ±0.0034
This paper
344
GRACE+S
0.9199 ±0.0035
This paper
345
GCA+I
0.9194 ±0.0013
This paper
362
AD GCL+I
0.9171 ±0.0078
This paper
365
GRACE+I
0.9164 ±0.0021
This paper
370
GRACE+SpCo
0.9156 ±0.0019
This paper
386
AD GCL
0.9134 ±0.0033
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
442
GCS
0.9015 ±0.0024
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #274 135 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #274 135 places worse
paper 0.8636 ±0.0032
paper 0.8636 ±0.0032 Δ at pub 0.0317 Δ today 0.0317
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #260 100 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #260 100 places worse
paper 0.8677 ±0.0031
paper 0.8677 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0217 Δ today 0.0217
205
Supervised GCN
0.8811 ±0.0014
This paper
228
GRACE+S
0.8767 ±0.0033
This paper
234
GRACE+I
0.8757 ±0.0053
This paper
256
GCA+S
0.8697 ±0.0040
This paper
259
Supervised GAT
0.8682 ±0.0009
This paper
267
GCA+I
0.8660 ±0.0029
This paper
269
GCS
0.8654 ±0.0026
This paper
289
AD GCL+I
0.8602 ±0.0053
This paper
317
AD GCL
0.8480 ±0.0051
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
376
GRACE+SpCo
0.8337 ±0.0038
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Micro-F1. The paper reports 9 values on Micro-F1 and 3 values on Accuracy .

#ModelMicro-F1 ↑ defaultAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9566 ± 0.0020
—
2
PSHGCN
0.9561 ± 0.0012
—
3
RpHGNN
0.9555 ± 0.0029
—
21
GCN
0.9460 ± 0.0031
—
74
GRACE
0.9128 ±0.0007
best reported
—
Accuracy —
paper 0.8401 ±0.0034
paper 0.8401 ±0.0034 Δ at pub 0.0727
107
GRACE+S
0.8483 ± 0.0018
—
Accuracy —
This paper
108
GRACE+I
0.8480 ± 0.0017
—
Accuracy —
This paper
109
GCA+I
—
0.8479 ± 0.0028
Accuracy 0.8479 ± 0.0028
This paper
109
AD GCL+I
—
0.8476 ± 0.0009
Accuracy 0.8476 ± 0.0009
This paper
110
GCA+S
—
0.8449 ± 0.0024
Accuracy 0.8449 ± 0.0024
This paper
112
GCA
0.8399 ±0.0021
—
Accuracy —
paper 0.8399 ±0.0021
paper 0.8399 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.2388
113
GRACE+SpCo
0.8361 ± 0.0014
—
Accuracy —
This paper
114
GCS
0.8338 ± 0.0037
—
Accuracy —
This paper
115
AD GCL
0.8314 ± 0.0016
—
Accuracy —
This paper
122
Supervised GAT
0.8192 ± 0.0003
—
Accuracy —
This paper
125
Supervised GCN
0.8126 ± 0.0001
—
Accuracy —
This paper
176
MLP
0.6447 ± 0.0136
—
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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