NeurIPS 2023

Simple and Asymmetric Graph Contrastive Learning without Augmentations

Teng Xiao, Huaisheng Zhu, Zhengyu Chen, Suhang Wang

Main figure for Simple and Asymmetric Graph Contrastive Learning without Augmentations

Abstract

Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has shown superior performance in representation learning in graph-structured data. Despite their success, most existing GCL methods rely on prefabricated graph augmentation and homophily assumptions. Thus, they fail to generalize well to heterophilic graphs where connected nodes may have different class labels and dissimilar features. In this paper, we study the problem of conducting contrastive learning on homophilic and heterophilic graphs. We find that we can achieve promising performance simply by considering an asymmetric view of the neighboring nodes. The resulting simple algorithm, Asymmetric Contrastive Learning for Graphs (GraphACL), is easy to implement and does not rely on graph augmentations and homophily assumptions. We provide theoretical and empirical evidence that GraphACL can capture one-hop local neighborhood information and two-hop monophily similarity, which are both important for modeling heterophilic graphs. Experimental results show that the simple GraphACL significantly outperforms state-of-the-art graph contrastive learning and self-supervised learning methods on homophilic and heterophilic graphs. The code of GraphACL is available at.

Proposed method: GraphACL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
383
GraphACL
0.7108 ±0.0034
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
194
SP-GCL
actual #194 vs paper #452 258 places worse
0.7833 ±0.0426
best reported
actual #194 vs paper #452 258 places worse
paper 0.5315 ±0.0128
paper 0.5315 ±0.0128 Δ today 0.2518
289
DSSL
actual #289 vs paper #460 171 places worse
0.6928 ±0.0601
best reported
actual #289 vs paper #460 171 places worse
paper 0.5229 ±0.0121
350
DGI
actual #350 vs paper #524 174 places worse
0.6335
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #524 174 places worse
paper 0.4533 ±0.0611
384
GraphACL
0.5933 ±0.0148
This paper
386
VGAE
actual #386 vs paper #499 113 places worse
0.5919
best reported
actual #386 vs paper #499 113 places worse
paper 0.4873 ±0.0419
415
BGRL
actual #415 vs paper #485 70 places worse
0.5730
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #485 70 places worse
paper 0.5033 ±0.0229
427
GCA
actual #427 vs paper #459 32 places worse
0.5541
best reported
actual #427 vs paper #459 32 places worse
paper 0.5231 ±0.0109
463
CCA-SSG
0.5217 ±0.0104
This paper
466
L-GCL
0.5211 ±0.0237
This paper
469
HGRL
0.5178 ±0.0103
This paper
538
LINE
0.4368 ±0.0217
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
351
GraphACL
0.3003 ±0.0013
This paper

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LargeScaleNet
0.6582 ±0.0036
2
S² DirGCN
0.6495 ±0.0033
3
FaberNet
0.6462 ±0.0101
27
GraphACL
0.4721 ±0.0039
This paper
31
GCN
0.4602 ±0.0026
33
SP-GCL
0.4580 ±0.0057
This paper
35
HGRL
0.4392 ±0.0052
This paper
36
DSSL
0.4371 ±0.0054
This paper
38
BGRL
0.4302 ±0.0062
This paper
39
GCA
0.4296 ±0.0039
This paper
43
CCA-SSG
actual #43 vs paper #54 11 places worse
0.4078 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #54 11 places worse
paper 0.3738 ±0.0041
paper 0.3738 ±0.0041 Δ today 0.0340
48
DGI
0.3926 ±0.0072
This paper
56
MLP
0.3670 ±0.0021
57
VGAE
0.3511 ±0.0025
This paper
58
LINE
0.3321 ±0.0013
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