Topology Reorganized Graph Contrastive Learning with Mitigating Semantic Drift

Jiaqiang Zhang, Songcan Chen

Main figure for Topology Reorganized Graph Contrastive Learning with Mitigating Semantic Drift

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) is an effective paradigm for node representation learning in graphs. The key components hidden behind GCL are data augmentation and positive-negative pair selection. Typical data augmentations in GCL, such as uniform deletion of edges, are generally blind and resort to local perturbation, which is prone to producing under-diversity views. Additionally, there is a risk of making the augmented data traverse to other classes. Moreover, most methods always treat all other samples as negatives. Such a negative pairing naturally results in sampling bias and likewise may make the learned representation suffer from semantic drift. Therefore, to increase the diversity of the contrastive view, we propose two simple and effective global topological augmentations to compensate current GCL. One is to mine the semantic correlation between nodes in the feature space. The other is to utilize the algebraic properties of the adjacency matrix to characterize the topology by eigen-decomposition. With the help of both, we can retain important edges to build a better view. To reduce the risk of semantic drift, a prototype-based negative pair selection is further designed which can filter false negative samples. Extensive experiments on various tasks demonstrate the advantages of the model compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 19 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #596 552 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #596 552 places worse
paper 0.7040 ±0.0040
paper 0.7040 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0993
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #658 592 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #658 592 places worse
paper 0.6880 ±0.0070
paper 0.6880 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.1010
73
GMI
actual #73 vs paper #409 336 places worse
0.7869 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #73 vs paper #409 336 places worse
paper 0.7240 ±0.0010
87
MVGRL
actual #87 vs paper #438 351 places worse
0.7808 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #438 351 places worse
paper 0.7220 ±0.0130
201
GRACE
actual #201 vs paper #446 245 places worse
0.7450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #201 vs paper #446 245 places worse
paper 0.7210 ±0.0050
paper 0.7210 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0240
225
GraphTP-T
0.7410 ±0.0020
This paper
240
GraphTP-F
0.7380 ±0.0030
This paper
340
COSTA_MV
0.7290 ±0.0030
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
354
COSTA_SV
0.7280 ±0.0030
This paper
427
HomoGCL
0.7230 ±0.0070
This paper
505
GCA
actual #505 vs paper #505
0.7150 ±0.0030
actual #505 vs paper #505
paper 0.7150 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7150 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0017
640
GBT
0.6940 ±0.0050
This paper
692
DeepWalk
actual #692 vs paper #864 172 places worse
0.6785 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #692 vs paper #864 172 places worse
paper 0.5050 ±0.0020
paper 0.5050 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.1735
709
Raw features
actual #709 vs paper #783 74 places worse
0.6730
best reported
actual #709 vs paper #783 74 places worse
paper 0.6460
paper 0.6460 Δ at pub 0.0270
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #292 284 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #292 284 places worse
paper 0.9242 ±0.0022
122
GraphTP-T
0.9372 ±0.0014
This paper
125
GraphTP-F
0.9369 ±0.0013
This paper
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #283 92 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #283 92 places worse
paper 0.9249 ±0.0009
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #277 74 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #277 74 places worse
paper 0.9253 ±0.0016
paper 0.9253 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0027 Δ today 0.0060
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #359 153 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #359 153 places worse
paper 0.9174 ±0.0007
paper 0.9174 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0136
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #366 153 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #366 153 places worse
paper 0.9161 ±0.0022
222
HomoGCL
actual #222 vs paper #225 3 places worse
0.9300 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #222 vs paper #225 3 places worse
paper 0.9292 ±0.0018

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9292 ±0.0018 Δ today 0.0008
235
GBT
actual #235 vs paper #288 53 places worse
0.9282 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #235 vs paper #288 53 places worse
paper 0.9246 ±0.0035

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9246 ±0.0035 Δ at pub 0.0017 Δ today 0.0036
276
COSTA_MV
0.9256 ±0.0045
This paper
309
COSTA_SV
0.9230 ±0.0025
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
408
GMI
actual #408 vs paper #417 9 places worse
0.9081 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #408 vs paper #417 9 places worse
paper 0.9068 ±0.0017

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9068 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0013
444
DeepWalk
actual #444 vs paper #464 20 places worse
0.9005 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #444 vs paper #464 20 places worse
paper 0.8944 ±0.0011
paper 0.8944 ±0.0011 Δ at pub 0.0061 Δ today 0.0061
531
Raw features
actual #531 vs paper #535 4 places worse
0.7999 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #531 vs paper #535 4 places worse
paper 0.7853
paper 0.7853 Δ today 0.0146
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #269 267 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #269 267 places worse
paper 0.8651 ±0.0054
paper 0.8651 ±0.0054 Δ at pub 0.0321 Δ today 0.0761
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
109
GraphTP-F
0.8993 ±0.0014
This paper
137
GraphTP-T
0.8954 ±0.0018
This paper
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #217 78 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #217 78 places worse
paper 0.8780 ±0.0023
paper 0.8780 ±0.0023 Δ at pub 0.0173 Δ today 0.0173
157
HomoGCL
actual #157 vs paper #186 29 places worse
0.8900 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #186 29 places worse
paper 0.8846 ±0.0020
paper 0.8846 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0054
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #213 53 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #213 53 places worse
paper 0.8785 ±0.0031
paper 0.8785 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0109 Δ today 0.0109
165
GBT
actual #165 vs paper #212 47 places worse
0.8885 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #165 vs paper #212 47 places worse
paper 0.8793 ±0.0036
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #235 56 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #235 56 places worse
paper 0.8752 ±0.0011
194
COSTA_MV
0.8832 ±0.0003
This paper
198
COSTA_SV
0.8826 ±0.0003
This paper
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #354 144 places worse
0.8798 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #354 144 places worse
paper 0.8395 ±0.0047
278
DeepWalk
actual #278 vs paper #296 18 places worse
0.8628 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #278 vs paper #296 18 places worse
paper 0.8568 ±0.0006
paper 0.8568 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0060
320
MLP
0.8463
342
GMI
actual #342 vs paper #398 56 places worse
0.8422 ±0.0052
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #398 56 places worse
paper 0.8221 ±0.0031
paper 0.8221 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0201
456
Raw features
0.7381
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ±0.0025
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #67 55 places worse
0.9514 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #67 55 places worse
paper 0.9303 ±0.0031
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.9303 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0057 Δ today 0.0211
30
GraphTP-F
0.9381 ±0.0002
This paper
43
DGI
actual #43 vs paper #114 71 places worse
0.9350 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #114 71 places worse
paper 0.9215 ±0.0063
51
GCA
actual #51 vs paper #63 12 places worse
0.9332 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #63 12 places worse
paper 0.9310 ±0.0001
55
GraphTP-T
0.9330 ±0.0001
This paper
69
GRACE
actual #69 vs paper #73 4 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0003
actual #69 vs paper #73 4 places worse
paper 0.9295 ±0.0003

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9295 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0006
74
GBT
actual #74 vs paper #82 8 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #74 vs paper #82 8 places worse
paper 0.9291 ±0.0025

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9291 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0004
75
COSTA_SV
0.9295 ±0.0012
This paper
81
COSTA_MV
0.9294 ±0.0010
This paper
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
94
HomoGCL
actual #94 vs paper #114 20 places worse
0.9274 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #114 20 places worse
paper 0.9216 ±0.0005
paper 0.9216 ±0.0005 Δ today 0.0058
116
MVGRL
0.9211 ±0.0012
This paper
152
GMI
actual #152 vs paper #152
0.9108 ±0.0056
actual #152 vs paper #152
paper 0.9108 ±0.0056

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9108 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0008
158
Raw features
actual #158 vs paper #158
0.9040
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #158
paper 0.9037
paper 0.9037 Δ at pub 0.0003
188
DeepWalk
0.8461 ±0.0022
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere