AAAI 2024

TopoGCL: Topological Graph Contrastive Learning

Yuzhou Chen, J. Frías, Y. Gel

Main figure for TopoGCL: Topological Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) has recently emerged as a new concept which allows for capitalizing on the strengths of graph neural networks (GNNs) to learn rich representations in a wide variety of applications which involve abundant unlabeled information. However, existing GCL approaches largely tend to overlook the important latent information on higher-order graph substructures. We address this limitation by introducing the concepts of topological invariance and extended persistence on graphs to GCL. In particular, we propose a new contrastive mode which targets topological representations of the two augmented views from the same graph, yielded by extracting latent shape properties of the graph at multiple resolutions. Along with the extended topological layer, we introduce a new extended persistence summary, namely, extended persistence landscapes (EPL) and derive its theoretical stability guarantees. Our extensive numerical results on biological, chemical, and social interaction graphs show that the new Topological Graph Contrastive Learning (TopoGCL) model delivers significant performance gains in unsupervised graph classification for 11 out of 12 considered datasets and also exhibits robustness under noisy scenarios.

Proposed method: TopoGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

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
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #596 437 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #596 437 places worse
paper 0.8072 ±0.0300
paper 0.8072 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0968
187
TopoGCL
0.9009 ±0.0093
This paper
271
GCL-TAGS
0.8912 ±0.0076
This paper
365
DGK
0.8744 ±0.0272
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
407
graph2vec
actual #407 vs paper #517 110 places worse
0.8644 ±0.0125
best reported
actual #407 vs paper #517 110 places worse
paper 0.8315 ±0.0925

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8315 ±0.0925 Δ at pub 0.0329
444
GL
actual #444 vs paper #577 133 places worse
0.8520 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #444 vs paper #577 133 places worse
paper 0.8166 ±0.0211
paper 0.8166 ±0.0211 Δ at pub 0.0354
472
Sub2Vec
actual #472 vs paper #786 314 places worse
0.8447 ±0.0037
best reported
actual #472 vs paper #786 314 places worse
paper 0.6105 ±0.1580

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6105 ±0.1580 Δ at pub 0.2342
746
Node2Vec
0.7263 ±0.1020
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
164
TopoGCL
0.8130 ±0.0027
This paper
467
GCL-TAGS
0.7143 ±0.0049
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSNN
0.7790 ±0.0360
2
SIN
0.7560 ±0.0320
3
CIN
0.7560 ±0.0370
5
GIN
0.7510 ±0.0510
26
TopoGCL
0.5281 ±0.0031
This paper
34
GCL-TAGS
0.5216 ±0.0072
This paper
51
AD-GCL
0.5060 ±0.0070
This paper
52
AutoGCL
0.5060 ±0.0080
This paper
75
RGCL
0.4931 ±0.0042
This paper
77
GraphCL
0.4920 ±0.0060
This paper
98
GL
0.4650 ±0.0030
This paper
115
Node2Vec
0.3600 ±0.0070
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)