NeurIPS 2023

Architecture Matters: Uncovering Implicit Mechanisms in Graph Contrastive Learning

Xiaojun Guo, Yifei Wang, Zeming Wei, Yisen Wang

Main figure for 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

#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
113
ProGCL
actual #113 vs paper #113
0.9381 ±0.0048
actual #113 vs paper #113
paper 0.9381 ±0.0048
paper 0.9381 ±0.0048 Δ at pub 0.0142
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #214 23 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #214 23 places worse
paper 0.9307 ±0.0066

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9307 ±0.0066 Δ at pub 0.0013 Δ today 0.0013
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #378 175 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #378 175 places worse
paper 0.9142 ±0.0127
paper 0.9142 ±0.0127 Δ at pub 0.0138 Δ today 0.0171
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
425
Neighbor nodes
0.9054 ±0.0064
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
135
ProGCL
actual #135 vs paper #274 139 places worse
0.8955 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #274 139 places worse
paper 0.8635 ±0.0128
paper 0.8635 ±0.0128 Δ at pub 0.0108 Δ today 0.0320
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #156 17 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #156 17 places worse
paper 0.8901 ±0.0060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8901 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0052 Δ today 0.0052
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #267 107 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #267 107 places worse
paper 0.8658 ±0.0075
paper 0.8658 ±0.0075 Δ at pub 0.0236 Δ today 0.0236
283
Neighbor nodes
0.8621 ±0.0058
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463

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
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
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