Generative and Contrastive Paradigms Are Complementary for Graph Self-Supervised Learning

Yuxiang Wang, Xiao Yan, Chuang Hu, Fangcheng Fu, Wentao Zhang, Hao Wang, Shuo Shang, Jiawei Jiang

Main figure for Generative and Contrastive Paradigms Are Complementary for Graph Self-Supervised Learning

Abstract

For graph self-supervised learning (GSSL), masked autoencoder (MAE) follows the generative paradigm and learns to reconstruct masked graph edges or node features. Contrastive Learning (CL) maximizes the similarity between augmented views of the same graph and is widely used for GSSL. However, MAE and CL are considered separately in existing works for GSSL. We observe that the MAE and CL paradigms are complementary and propose the graph contrastive masked autoencoder (GCMAE) framework to unify them. Specifically, by focusing on local edges or node features, MAE cannot capture global information of the graph and is sensitive to particular edges and features. On the contrary, CL excels in extracting global information because it considers the relation between graphs. As such, we equip GCMAE with an MAE branch and a CL branch, and the two branches share a common encoder, which allows the MAE branch to exploit the global information extracted by the CL branch. To force GCMAE to capture global graph structures, we train it to reconstruct the entire adjacency matrix instead of only the masked edges as in existing works. Moreover, a discrimination loss is proposed for feature reconstruction, which improves the disparity between node embeddings rather than reducing the reconstruction error to tackle the feature smoothing problem of MAE. We evaluate GCMAE on four popular graph tasks (i.e., node classification, node clustering, link prediction, and graph classification) and compare it with 14 state-of-the-art baselines. The results show that GCMAE consistently provides good accuracy across these tasks, and the maximum accuracy improvement is up to 3.2\

Proposed method: GCMAE

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 18 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7251 ±0.0071
paper 0.7251 ±0.0071 Δ at pub 0.0829
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #601 557 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #601 557 places worse
paper 0.7034 ±0.0062
paper 0.7034 ±0.0062 Δ at pub 0.0909 Δ today 0.0999
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
paper 0.7182 ±0.0076
paper 0.7182 ±0.0076 Δ at pub 0.0708
87
MVGRL
actual #87 vs paper #296 209 places worse
0.7808 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #296 209 places worse
paper 0.7327 ±0.0056
120
GCMAE
0.7677 ±0.0002
This paper
165
CCA-SSG
actual #165 vs paper #334 169 places worse
0.7540 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #165 vs paper #334 169 places worse
paper 0.7299 ±0.0039
paper 0.7299 ±0.0039 Δ at pub 0.0241
177
MaskGAE
actual #177 vs paper #177
0.7510 ±0.0007
actual #177 vs paper #177
paper 0.7510 ±0.0007
paper 0.7510 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0500
198
S2GAE
0.7454 ±0.0006
This paper
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #538 337 places worse
0.7450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #538 337 places worse
paper 0.7121 ±0.0053
paper 0.7121 ±0.0053 Δ at pub 0.0329
209
GraphMAE
actual #209 vs paper #402 193 places worse
0.7436
best reported
actual #209 vs paper #402 193 places worse
paper 0.7248 ±0.0077
paper 0.7248 ±0.0077 Δ today 0.0188
328
SEEGERA
actual #328 vs paper #353 25 places worse
0.7300 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #328 vs paper #353 25 places worse
paper 0.7281 ±0.0013

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7281 ±0.0013 Δ today 0.0019
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 #585 567 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0050
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7902 ±0.0032
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
130
GCMAE
0.8851 ±0.0018
This paper
136
CCA-SSG
actual #136 vs paper #370 234 places worse
0.8840 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #370 234 places worse
paper 0.8104 ±0.0048
paper 0.8104 ±0.0048 Δ at pub 0.0736
187
MaskGAE
actual #187 vs paper #226 39 places worse
0.8633 ±0.0026
actual #187 vs paper #226 39 places worse
paper 0.8633 ±0.0026
194
GRACE
actual #194 vs paper #398 204 places worse
0.8730 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #194 vs paper #398 204 places worse
paper 0.8062 ±0.0043
paper 0.8062 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0668
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 0.8011 ±0.0077
204
DGI
actual #204 vs paper #745 541 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #745 541 places worse
paper 0.7682 ±0.0062
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
216
S2GAE
0.8679 ±0.0022
This paper
232
GraphMAE
actual #232 vs paper #317 85 places worse
0.8594 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #232 vs paper #317 85 places worse
paper 0.8253 ±0.0014
300
SEEGERA
0.8301 ±0.0032
This paper

Reddit

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAP-EDP
0.9870 ±0.0003
2
NE-ASGCN
0.9758 ±0.0027
3
HSGT
0.9730 ±0.0024
4
GCMAE
0.9713 ±0.0017
This paper
21
GraphSAGE
0.9653 ±0.0011
22
GAT
actual #22 vs paper #42 20 places worse
0.9650 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #42 20 places worse
paper 0.9600 ±0.0010
paper 0.9600 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0050 Δ today 0.0050
26
GCN
actual #26 vs paper #55 29 places worse
0.9648
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #55 29 places worse
paper 0.9530 ±0.0010
paper 0.9530 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0118
42
GraphMAE
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.9601 ±0.0008
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.9601 ±0.0008

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9601 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.0001
49
SEEGERA
0.9566 ±0.0030
This paper
58
S2GAE
0.9527 ±0.0021
This paper
65
MaskGAE
0.9517 ±0.0021
This paper
67
CCA-SSG
0.9507 ±0.0002
This paper
74
GRACE
actual #74 vs paper #74
0.9472 ±0.0004
actual #74 vs paper #74
paper 0.9472 ±0.0004
paper 0.9472 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0302
77
DGI
actual #77 vs paper #77
0.9403 ±0.0010
actual #77 vs paper #77
paper 0.9403 ±0.0010

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9403 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0003
147
MLP
0.8240 ±0.0010

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
102
GCMAE
actual #102 vs paper #103 1 place worse
0.9130 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #102 vs paper #103 1 place worse
paper 0.9128 ±0.0055

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9128 ±0.0055 Δ today 0.0002
105
InfoGCL
0.9120 ±0.0130
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 at pub 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

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8901 ±0.0113 Δ at pub 0.0029
258
GraphMAE
actual #258 vs paper #326 68 places worse
0.8930 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #258 vs paper #326 68 places worse
paper 0.8819 ±0.0126

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8819 ±0.0126 Δ today 0.0111
266
S2GAE
actual #266 vs paper #323 57 places worse
0.8927 ±0.0153
best reported
actual #266 vs paper #323 57 places worse
paper 0.8826 ±0.0076

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8826 ±0.0076 Δ today 0.0101
351
JOAO
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
0.8770 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
paper 0.8735 ±0.0102

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8735 ±0.0102 Δ at pub 0.0035 Δ today 0.0035
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 #325 221 places worse
0.8250 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #325 221 places worse
paper 0.7787 ±0.0041
paper 0.7787 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0463
112
S2GAE
actual #112 vs paper #184 72 places worse
0.8237 ±0.0224
best reported
actual #112 vs paper #184 72 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.0024

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8080 ±0.0024 Δ today 0.0157
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
155
GCMAE
0.8142 ±0.0030
This paper
200
GraphMAE
actual #200 vs paper #202 2 places worse
0.8042 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #200 vs paper #202 2 places worse
paper 0.8040 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8040 ±0.0030 Δ today 0.0002
215
InfoGCL
0.8020 ±0.0060
This paper
301
JOAO
actual #301 vs paper #317 16 places worse
0.7840 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #301 vs paper #317 16 places worse
paper 0.7807 ±0.0047

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7807 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0033
338
InfoGraph
actual #338 vs paper #386 48 places worse
0.7750 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #338 vs paper #386 48 places worse
paper 0.7620 ±0.0106

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7620 ±0.0106 Δ at pub 0.0130
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
22
GraphMAE
actual #22 vs paper #109 87 places worse
0.8270 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #109 87 places worse
paper 0.8032 ±0.0046
paper 0.8032 ±0.0046 Δ today 0.0238
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
27
S2GAE
actual #27 vs paper #81 54 places worse
0.8235 ±0.0234
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #81 54 places worse
paper 0.8102 ±0.0053

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8102 ±0.0053 Δ today 0.0133
68
GCMAE
0.8132 ±0.0032
This paper
80
GraphCL
actual #80 vs paper #290 210 places worse
0.8108 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #80 vs paper #290 210 places worse
paper 0.7136 ±0.0115
paper 0.7136 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0972
126
InfoGCL
actual #126 vs paper #126
0.8001 ±0.0132
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #126
paper 0.8000 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8000 ±0.0130 Δ today 0.0001
146
InfoGraph
actual #146 vs paper #295 149 places worse
0.7940
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #295 149 places worse
paper 0.7065 ±0.0113
paper 0.7065 ±0.0113 Δ at pub 0.0875
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
248
JOAO
actual #248 vs paper #305 57 places worse
0.7535 ±0.0093
best reported
actual #248 vs paper #305 57 places worse
paper 0.6950 ±0.0036
paper 0.6950 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.0585
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere