CDC: A Simple Framework for Complex Data Clustering

Zhao Kang, Xuanting Xie, Bingheng Li, Erlin Pan

Main figure for CDC: A Simple Framework for Complex Data Clustering

Abstract

In today’s digital era driven by data, the amount and complexity of the collected data, such as multiview, non-Euclidean, and multirelational, are growing exponentially or even faster. Clustering, which unsupervisedly extracts valid knowledge from data, is extremely useful in practice. However, existing methods are independently developed to handle one particular challenge at the expense of the others. In this work, we propose a simple but effective framework for complex data clustering (CDC) that can efficiently process different types of data with linear complexity. We first use graph filtering (GF) to fuse geometric structure and attribute information. We then reduce complexity with high-quality anchors that are adaptively learned via a novel similarity-preserving (SP) regularizer. We illustrate the cluster-ability of our proposed method theoretically and experimentally. In particular, we deploy CDC to graph data of size 111 M.

Proposed method: CDC

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low Non-standard metric on 4 datasets

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

OGB

ogbn-products

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

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelACC ↑Paper
1
S^3GC
0.4020
This paper
2
CDC
0.3660
This paper
3
Node2Vec
0.3570
This paper
4
DGI
0.3200
This paper
5
DMoN
0.3040
This paper
6
METIS
0.2940
This paper

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
421
CDC
0.6720
This paper
482
CGC
0.6150
This paper
503
CDRS
0.5990
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
471
CDC
0.5140
This paper
530
CGC
actual #530 vs paper #531 1 place worse
0.4462
best reported
actual #530 vs paper #531 1 place worse
paper 0.4460
paper 0.4460 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0002

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

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

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
AUG_bal
0.9454 ±0.0123
2
AUG_min
0.9375 ±0.0115
3
AUG_ran
0.9368 ±0.0108
4
CDC
0.9290
This paper
6
MCGC
0.9250
This paper
7
MvAGC
0.9230
This paper
11
CMGEC
0.9040
This paper
13
O2MAC
0.9010
This paper
20
DMG
0.8790
This paper
21
BTGF
0.8730
This paper
22
HDMI
0.8650
This paper
23
DAEGC
0.8620
This paper
39
SAGE
0.7320

ACM

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

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
SPGRL
0.9398
2
CDC
0.9360
This paper
3
SynC SSL
0.9274 ±0.0004
10
MCGC
0.9160
This paper
15
CMGEC
0.9070
This paper
16
O2MAC
0.9050
This paper
17
GCN
0.9049
22
BTGF
0.9010
This paper
24
MvAGC
0.8990
This paper
27
DAEGC
0.8910
This paper
32
DMG
0.8730
This paper
33
HDMI
0.8720
This paper

Hypergraph Benchmarks

AMAP

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

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GANN
0.9405 ±0.0037
2
GPRGNN
0.9308 ±0.0026
3
GAT
0.9238 ±0.0014
14
GCN
0.8115 ±0.0105
19
CDC
0.7300
This paper
28
MCGC
actual #28 vs paper #28
0.6860
actual #28 vs paper #28
paper 0.6860
paper 0.6860 Δ at pub 0.0968
36
MvAGC
0.6400
This paper
49
MAGCN
0.4740
This paper
50
MVGRL
actual #50 vs paper #50
0.4600
actual #50 vs paper #50
paper 0.4600
paper 0.4600 Δ at pub 0.0327
55
COMPLETER
0.3070
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