NeurIPS 2024

Leveraging Contrastive Learning for Enhanced Node Representations in Tokenized Graph Transformers

Jinsong Chen, Hanpeng Liu, J. Hopcroft, Kun He

Main figure for Leveraging Contrastive Learning for Enhanced Node Representations in Tokenized Graph Transformers

Abstract

While tokenized graph Transformers have demonstrated strong performance in node classification tasks, their reliance on a limited subset of nodes with high similarity scores for constructing token sequences overlooks valuable information from other nodes, hindering their ability to fully harness graph information for learning optimal node representations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel graph Transformer called GCFormer. Unlike previous approaches, GCFormer develops a hybrid token generator to create two types of token sequences, positive and negative, to capture diverse graph information. And a tailored Transformer-based backbone is adopted to learn meaningful node representations from these generated token sequences. Additionally, GCFormer introduces contrastive learning to extract valuable information from both positive and negative token sequences, enhancing the quality of learned node representations. Extensive experimental results across various datasets, including homophily and heterophily graphs, demonstrate the superiority of GCFormer in node classification, when compared to representative graph neural networks (GNNs) and graph Transformers.

Proposed method: GCFormer

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

ACM

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SignGT
0.9545 ±0.0049
2
NodeFormer
0.9493 ±0.0035
3
FAGCN
actual #3 vs paper #19 16 places worse
0.9487 ±0.0059
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #19 16 places worse
paper 0.9337 ±0.0024
paper 0.9337 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0150
4
Specformer
actual #4 vs paper #15 11 places worse
0.9454 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #15 11 places worse
paper 0.9363 ±0.0194

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9363 ±0.0194 Δ at pub 0.0091
5
GPRGNN
actual #5 vs paper #19 14 places worse
0.9442 ±0.0049
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #19 14 places worse
paper 0.9342 ±0.0020
paper 0.9342 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0100
6
GCFormer
0.9432 ±0.0047
This paper
12
ANS-GT
0.9392 ±0.0021
This paper
14
SGFormer
0.9379 ±0.0034
This paper
19
NCLA
0.9346 ±0.0039
This paper
22
NAGphormer
0.9332 ±0.0030
This paper
23
GraphGPS
0.9331 ±0.0026
This paper
25
ClusterSCL
0.9327 ±0.0029
This paper
26
SGC
actual #26 vs paper #26
0.9324 ±0.0049
actual #26 vs paper #26
paper 0.9324 ±0.0049

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9324 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0009
27
VCR-Graphormer
0.9324 ±0.0031
This paper
28
CoCoS
0.9324 ±0.0066
This paper
31
ACM-GCN
0.9304 ±0.0128
This paper
32
APPNP
actual #32 vs paper #32
0.9300 ±0.0055
actual #32 vs paper #32
paper 0.9300 ±0.0055
paper 0.9300 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0146
34
GCN
0.9233 ±0.0038
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