WWW 2024

Graph Contrastive Learning with Cohesive Subgraph Awareness

Yucheng Wu, Leye Wang, Xiao Han, Han-Jia Ye

Main figure for Graph Contrastive Learning with Cohesive Subgraph Awareness

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) has emerged as a state-of-the-art strategy for learning representations of diverse graphs including social and biomedical networks. GCL widely uses stochastic graph topology augmentation, such as uniform node dropping, to generate augmented graphs. However, such stochastic augmentations may severely damage the intrinsic properties of a graph and deteriorate the following representation learning process. We argue that incorporating an awareness of cohesive subgraphs during the graph augmentation and learning processes has the potential to enhance GCL performance. To this end, we propose a novel unified framework called CTAug, to seamlessly integrate cohesion awareness into various existing GCL mechanisms. In particular, CTAug comprises two specialized modules: topology augmentation enhancement and graph learning enhancement. The former module generates augmented graphs that carefully preserve cohesion properties, while the latter module bolsters the graph encoder's ability to discern subgraph patterns. Theoretical analysis shows that CTAug can strictly improve existing GCL mechanisms. Empirical experiments verify that CTAug can achieve state-of-the-art performance for graph representation learning, especially for graphs with high degrees. The code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10594093, or https://github.com/wuyucheng2002/CTAug.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 11 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#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 #256 117 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #256 117 places worse
paper 0.8696 ±0.0014
paper 0.8696 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0257 Δ today 0.0257
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #237 77 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #237 77 places worse
paper 0.8748 ±0.0011
paper 0.8748 ±0.0011 Δ at pub 0.0146 Δ today 0.0146
197
CTAug-GCA
0.8830 ±0.0013
This paper
233
CTAug-GRACE
0.8759 ±0.0012
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
63
GCA
actual #63 vs paper #109 46 places worse
0.9590 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #109 46 places worse
paper 0.9555 ±0.0003
paper 0.9555 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0035
77
GRACE
actual #77 vs paper #109 32 places worse
0.9574 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #109 32 places worse
paper 0.9556 ±0.0005
paper 0.9556 ±0.0005 Δ at pub 0.0007 Δ today 0.0018
89
CTAug-GRACE
0.9568 ±0.0001
This paper
99
CTAug-GCA
0.9561 ±0.0001
This paper

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
36
CTAug-JOAO
0.8190 ±0.0053
This paper
37
SimGRACE
actual #37 vs paper #307 270 places worse
0.8188 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #307 270 places worse
paper 0.6907 ±0.0024
paper 0.6907 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.1281
42
CTAug-GraphCL
0.8172 ±0.0026
This paper
79
CTAug-MVGRL
0.8109 ±0.0037
This paper
80
GraphCL
actual #80 vs paper #282 202 places worse
0.8108 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #80 vs paper #282 202 places worse
paper 0.7236 ±0.0176
paper 0.7236 ±0.0176 Δ at pub 0.0872
104
MVGRL
actual #104 vs paper #104
0.8048 ±0.0029
actual #104 vs paper #104
paper 0.8048 ±0.0029
paper 0.8048 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0406
146
InfoGraph
actual #146 vs paper #307 161 places worse
0.7940
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #307 161 places worse
paper 0.6912 ±0.0015
paper 0.6912 ±0.0015 Δ at pub 0.1028
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
204
AutoGCL
actual #204 vs paper #313 109 places worse
0.7716 ±0.0148
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #313 109 places worse
paper 0.6727 ±0.0264
paper 0.6727 ±0.0264 Δ at pub 0.0989 Δ today 0.0989
223
GCL-SPAN
actual #223 vs paper #258 35 places worse
0.7637 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #258 35 places worse
paper 0.7433 ±0.0040
paper 0.7433 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0204
233
AD-GCL
actual #233 vs paper #290 57 places worse
0.7582 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #233 vs paper #290 57 places worse
paper 0.7122 ±0.0089
paper 0.7122 ±0.0089 Δ at pub 0.0460 Δ today 0.0460
248
JOAO
actual #248 vs paper #271 23 places worse
0.7535 ±0.0093
best reported
actual #248 vs paper #271 23 places worse
paper 0.7340 ±0.0046
paper 0.7340 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0195
271
RGCL
actual #271 vs paper #271
0.7348 ±0.0093
actual #271 vs paper #271
paper 0.7348 ±0.0093
paper 0.7348 ±0.0093 Δ at pub 0.0256
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
131
GraphCL
actual #131 vs paper #216 85 places worse
0.5510 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #131 vs paper #216 85 places worse
paper 0.3283 ±0.0205
paper 0.3283 ±0.0205 Δ today 0.2227
158
InfoGraph
actual #158 vs paper #247 89 places worse
0.5020 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #247 89 places worse
paper 0.2673 ±0.0375
paper 0.2673 ±0.0375 Δ today 0.2347
162
MVGRL
actual #162 vs paper #213 51 places worse
0.4830 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #213 51 places worse
paper 0.3420 ±0.0067
paper 0.3420 ±0.0067 Δ today 0.1410
180
AD-GCL
actual #180 vs paper #244 64 places worse
0.4260 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #180 vs paper #244 64 places worse
paper 0.2733 ±0.0228
paper 0.2733 ±0.0228 Δ today 0.1527
187
CTAug-JOAO
0.3992 ±0.0136
This paper
190
CTAug-GraphCL
0.3917 ±0.0100
This paper
207
CTAug-MVGRL
0.3546 ±0.0120
This paper
212
JOAO
0.3460 ±0.0106
This paper
216
RGCL
0.3333 ±0.0161
This paper
224
SimGRACE
0.3137 ±0.0159
This paper
233
AutoGCL
0.2983 ±0.0224
This paper
243
GCL-SPAN
0.2763 ±0.0113
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
13
GIN
0.9240 ±0.0250
18
CTAug-GraphCL
0.9228 ±0.0033
This paper
21
CTAug-JOAO
0.9219 ±0.0024
This paper
23
GraphCL
actual #23 vs paper #23
0.9169 ±0.0070
actual #23 vs paper #23
paper 0.9169 ±0.0070
paper 0.9169 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0216
24
JOAO
actual #24 vs paper #24
0.9166 ±0.0059
actual #24 vs paper #24
paper 0.9166 ±0.0059
paper 0.9166 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0352
26
RGCL
actual #26 vs paper #26
0.9138 ±0.0040
actual #26 vs paper #26
paper 0.9138 ±0.0040
paper 0.9138 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0104
37
AD-GCL
actual #37 vs paper #48 11 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #48 11 places worse
paper 0.8884 ±0.0090

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8884 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0126
44
SimGRACE
actual #44 vs paper #56 12 places worse
0.8951 ±0.0089
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #56 12 places worse
paper 0.8665 ±0.0112
46
InfoGraph
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.8939 ±0.0181
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.8939 ±0.0181

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8939 ±0.0181 Δ at pub 0.0073
47
AutoGCL
0.8931 ±0.0148
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere