Generative-Contrastive Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network

Yu Wang, Lei Sang, Yi Zhang, Yiwen Zhang, Xindong Wu

Main figure for Generative-Contrastive Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network

Abstract

Heterogeneous Graphs (HGs) effectively model complex relationships in the real world through multi-type nodes and edges. In recent years, inspired by self-supervised learning (SSL), contrastive learning (CL)-based Heterogeneous Graphs Neural Networks (HGNNs) have shown great potential in utilizing data augmentation and contrastive discriminators for downstream tasks. However, data augmentation remains limited due to the graph data's integrity. Furthermore, the contrastive discriminators suffer from sampling bias and lack local heterogeneous information. To tackle the above limitations, we propose a novel Generative-Contrastive Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network (GC-HGNN). Specifically, we propose a heterogeneous graph generative learning method that enhances CL-based paradigm. This paradigm includes: 1) A contrastive view augmentation strategy using a masked autoencoder. 2) Position-aware and semantics-aware positive sample sampling strategy for generating hard negative samples. 3) A hierarchical contrastive learning strategy aimed at capturing local and global information. Furthermore, the hierarchical contrastive learning and sampling strategies aim to constitute an enhanced contrastive discriminator under the generative-contrastive perspective. Finally, we compare our model with seventeen baselines on eight real-world datasets. Our model outperforms the latest baselines on node classification and link prediction tasks. To reproduce our work, we have open-sourced our code at https://github.com/wangyu0627/GC-HGNN.

Proposed method: GC-HGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 17 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9566 ±0.0020
2
PSHGCN
0.9561 ±0.0012
3
RpHGNN
0.9555 ±0.0029
7
MHGCN
actual #7 vs paper #76 69 places worse
0.9520 ±0.0203
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #76 69 places worse
paper 0.9062 ±0.0019
paper 0.9062 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0458
21
GCN
0.9460 ±0.0031
37
HAN
actual #37 vs paper #104 67 places worse
0.9369
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #104 67 places worse
paper 0.8518 ±0.0049
39
HGT
actual #39 vs paper #74 35 places worse
0.9365
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #74 35 places worse
paper 0.9124 ±0.0049
paper 0.9124 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0241
41
HGMAE
actual #41 vs paper #68 27 places worse
0.9340 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #68 27 places worse
paper 0.9189 ±0.0035
44
DMGI
actual #44 vs paper #75 31 places worse
0.9331
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #75 31 places worse
paper 0.9066 ±0.0046
45
HGCML
actual #45 vs paper #74 29 places worse
0.9329 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #74 29 places worse
paper 0.9111 ±0.0049
paper 0.9111 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0218
47
Mp2vec
actual #47 vs paper #77 30 places worse
0.9304
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #77 30 places worse
paper 0.9030 ±0.0038
paper 0.9030 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0274
48
GC-HGNN
0.9301 ±0.0030
This paper
62
HeCo
actual #62 vs paper #77 15 places worse
0.9224 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #77 15 places worse
paper 0.9059 ±0.0025
paper 0.9059 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0165
75
HERec
actual #75 vs paper #77 2 places worse
0.9075 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #75 vs paper #77 2 places worse
paper 0.9037 ±0.0047

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9037 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0038
81
DeepWalk
actual #81 vs paper #81
0.9012 ±0.0045
actual #81 vs paper #81
paper 0.9012 ±0.0045
paper 0.9012 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.0203
176
MLP
0.6447 ±0.0136
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9469 ±0.0036
2
PSHGCN
0.9427 ±0.0023
3
SlotGAT
0.9406 ±0.0022
29
GCN
0.9229
37
MHGCN
actual #37 vs paper #70 33 places worse
0.9197 ±0.0068
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #70 33 places worse
paper 0.8870 ±0.0022
paper 0.8870 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0327
41
HGT
actual #41 vs paper #76 35 places worse
0.9160 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #76 35 places worse
paper 0.8820 ±0.0026
best at pub: Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks (KDD 2021)
paper 0.8820 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0280 Δ today 0.0340
43
HAN
actual #43 vs paper #76 33 places worse
0.9147 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #76 33 places worse
paper 0.8820 ±0.0037
best at pub: Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks (KDD 2021)
paper 0.8820 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0259 Δ today 0.0327
48
HGCML
actual #48 vs paper #80 32 places worse
0.9102 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #80 32 places worse
paper 0.8790 ±0.0027
paper 0.8790 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0312
53
HGMAE
actual #53 vs paper #66 13 places worse
0.8915 ±0.0031
actual #53 vs paper #66 13 places worse
paper 0.8915 ±0.0031

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8915 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0056 Δ today 0.0145
59
GC-HGNN
0.9036 ±0.0031
This paper
64
DMGI
actual #64 vs paper #84 20 places worse
0.8980 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #84 20 places worse
paper 0.8760 ±0.0035
best at pub: Implicit Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.8760 ±0.0035 Δ at pub 0.0220 Δ today 0.0220
68
HeCo
actual #68 vs paper #70 2 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0112
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #70 2 places worse
paper 0.8871 ±0.0043

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8871 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0026
77
Mp2vec
actual #77 vs paper #107 30 places worse
0.8810 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #107 30 places worse
paper 0.7286 ±0.0092
paper 0.7286 ±0.0092 Δ at pub 0.0696 Δ today 0.1524
100
DeepWalk
actual #100 vs paper #107 7 places worse
0.8178 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #100 vs paper #107 7 places worse
paper 0.7405 ±0.0047
paper 0.7405 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0773
107
HERec
actual #107 vs paper #107
0.7445 ±0.0045
actual #107 vs paper #107
paper 0.7445 ±0.0045
paper 0.7445 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.0730
109
MLP
0.7102 ±0.0221
#ModelMacro-F1 ↑Paper
1
ConCH
0.6475
2
HetGNN
0.6292
3
GC-HGNN
0.6247 ±0.0042
This paper
5
HGT
actual #5 vs paper #15 10 places worse
0.6176
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #15 10 places worse
paper 0.5830 ±0.0072
paper 0.5830 ±0.0072 Δ at pub 0.0346
7
GCN
0.6090
8
HGMAE
0.6082 ±0.0051
This paper
10
HAN
actual #10 vs paper #15 5 places worse
0.6011
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #15 5 places worse
paper 0.5850 ±0.0093
paper 0.5850 ±0.0093 Δ at pub 0.0161
11
HeCo
0.5987 ±0.0033
This paper
13
HERec
0.5946 ±0.0116
This paper
14
DeepWalk
0.5920 ±0.0050
This paper
15
HGCML
0.5892 ±0.0257
This paper
16
Mp2vec
actual #16 vs paper #19 3 places worse
0.5750
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #19 3 places worse
paper 0.5550 ±0.0049
paper 0.5550 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0200
18
MHGCN
0.5712 ±0.0032
This paper
19
DMGI
0.5599 ±0.0059
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