Architecture Matters: Uncovering Implicit Mechanisms in Graph Contrastive Learning
Abstract
With the prosperity of contrastive learning for visual representation learning (VCL), it is also adapted to the graph domain and yields promising performance. However, through a systematic study of various graph contrastive learning (GCL) methods, we observe that some common phenomena among existing GCL methods that are quite different from the original VCL methods, including 1) positive samples are not a must for GCL; 2) negative samples are not necessary for graph classification, neither for node classification when adopting specific normalization modules; 3) data augmentations have much less influence on GCL, as simple domain-agnostic augmentations (e.g., Gaussian noise) can also attain fairly good performance. By uncovering how the implicit inductive bias of GNNs works in contrastive learning, we theoretically provide insights into the above intriguing properties of GCL. Rather than directly porting existing VCL methods to GCL, we advocate for more attention toward the unique architecture of graph learning and consider its implicit influence when designing GCL methods. Code is available at.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 113 | ProGCL | 0.9381
±0.0048 | prev best: HomoGCL: Rethinking Homophily in Graph Contrastive Learning (KDD 2023) |
| 191 | GCA | 0.9320
±0.0060 best reported | best at pub: Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning with Flexible Contextual Scopes (2022) best today: Decoupling Weighing and Selecting for Integrating Multiple Graph Pre-training Tasks (ICLR 2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 203 | GRACE | 0.9313
±0.0017 best reported | best at pub: Learning Graph Augmentations to Learn Graph Representations (2022) best today: Learn Beneficial Noise as Graph Augmentation (ICML 2025) |
| 390 | MLP | 0.9128
±0.0063 | |
| 425 | Neighbor nodes | 0.9054
±0.0064 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 135 | ProGCL | 0.8955
±0.0016 best reported | best at pub: HomoGCL: Rethinking Homophily in Graph Contrastive Learning (KDD 2023) best today: Adaptive Negative Scheduling for Graph Contrastive Learning (2026) |
| 139 | GRACE | 0.8953
±0.0035 best reported | best at pub: Spectral Augmentation for Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs (ICLR 2022) best today: Adaptive Negative Scheduling for Graph Contrastive Learning (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 160 | GCA | 0.8894
±0.0015 best reported | best at pub: Barlow Graph Auto-Encoder for Unsupervised Network Embedding (2021) best today: Adaptive Negative Scheduling for Graph Contrastive Learning (2026) |
| 283 | Neighbor nodes | 0.8621
±0.0058 | This paper |
| 320 | MLP | 0.8463 |
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 156 | ADGCL (Contrast) | 0.9043
±0.0118 | This paper |
| 212 | InfoGraph (Contrast) | 0.8975
±0.0135 | This paper |
| 295 | GraphCL (NO Neg) | 0.8873
±0.0052 | This paper |
| 376 | AutoGCL (NO Pos) | 0.8723
±0.0113 | This paper |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 414 | JOAO (Contrast) | 0.8617
±0.0155 | This paper |
