NeurIPS 2024

Revisiting Self-Supervised Heterogeneous Graph Learning from Spectral Clustering Perspective

Yujie Mo, Zhihe Lu, Runpeng Yu, Xiaofeng Zhu, Xinchao Wang

Main figure for Revisiting Self-Supervised Heterogeneous Graph Learning from Spectral Clustering Perspective

Abstract

Self-supervised heterogeneous graph learning (SHGL) has shown promising potential in diverse scenarios. However, while existing SHGL methods share a similar essential with clustering approaches, they encounter two significant limitations: (i) noise in graph structures is often introduced during the message-passing process to weaken node representations, and (ii) cluster-level information may be inadequately captured and leveraged, diminishing the performance in downstream tasks. In this paper, we address these limitations by theoretically revisiting SHGL from the spectral clustering perspective and introducing a novel framework enhanced by rank and dual consistency constraints. Specifically, our framework incorporates a rank-constrained spectral clustering method that refines the affinity matrix to exclude noise effectively. Additionally, we integrate node-level and cluster-level consistency constraints that concurrently capture invariant and clustering information to facilitate learning in downstream tasks. We theoretically demonstrate that the learned representations are divided into distinct partitions based on the number of classes and exhibit enhanced generalization ability across tasks. Experimental results affirm the superiority of our method, showcasing remarkable improvements in several downstream tasks compared to existing methods.

Proposed method: SCHOOL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 11 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
16
SCHOOL
0.9470 ±0.0040
This paper
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #74 53 places worse
0.9460 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #74 53 places worse
paper 0.9090 ±0.0050
paper 0.9090 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0370
23
GAT
actual #23 vs paper #65 42 places worse
0.9448 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #65 42 places worse
paper 0.9210 ±0.0020
paper 0.9210 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0238
28
HERO
0.9440 ±0.0040
This paper
36
CPIM
0.9380 ±0.0080
This paper
37
HAN
actual #37 vs paper #67 30 places worse
0.9369
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #67 30 places worse
paper 0.9200 ±0.0050
39
HGT
actual #39 vs paper #70 31 places worse
0.9365
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #70 31 places worse
paper 0.9170 ±0.0080
paper 0.9170 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0195
41
HGMAE
actual #41 vs paper #41
0.9340 ±0.0060
actual #41 vs paper #41
paper 0.9340 ±0.0060
44
DMGI
actual #44 vs paper #49 5 places worse
0.9331
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #49 5 places worse
paper 0.9290 ±0.0030
45
HGCML
actual #45 vs paper #45
0.9329 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #45
paper 0.9320 ±0.0070

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9320 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0009
46
GraphSAGE
0.9306 ±0.0047
47
Mp2vec
actual #47 vs paper #86 39 places worse
0.9304
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #86 39 places worse
paper 0.8760 ±0.0060
paper 0.8760 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0544
62
HeCo
actual #62 vs paper #70 8 places worse
0.9224 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #70 8 places worse
paper 0.9160 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9160 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0064
64
HDMI
actual #64 vs paper #64
0.9220 ±0.0050
actual #64 vs paper #64
paper 0.9220 ±0.0050

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9220 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0004
70
DMGIattn
0.9180 ±0.0030
This paper
81
DeepWalk
actual #81 vs paper #83 2 places worse
0.9012 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #83 2 places worse
paper 0.8950 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8950 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0062
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
19
GAT
actual #19 vs paper #95 76 places worse
0.9273
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #95 76 places worse
paper 0.8490 ±0.0030
paper 0.8490 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0783
21
SCHOOL
0.9260 ±0.0050
This paper
29
GCN
actual #29 vs paper #84 55 places worse
0.9229
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #84 55 places worse
paper 0.8700 ±0.0030
paper 0.8700 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0529
35
HERO
0.9210 ±0.0070
This paper
41
HGT
actual #41 vs paper #41
0.9160 ±0.0060
actual #41 vs paper #41
paper 0.9160 ±0.0060
prev best: Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks (KDD 2021)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9160 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0060
43
HAN
actual #43 vs paper #66 23 places worse
0.9147 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #66 23 places worse
paper 0.8920 ±0.0020
paper 0.8920 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0227
46
CPIM
0.9130 ±0.0020
This paper
47
HDMI
actual #47 vs paper #62 15 places worse
0.9116 ±0.0056
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #62 15 places worse
paper 0.9010 ±0.0030
48
HGCML
actual #48 vs paper #51 3 places worse
0.9102 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #51 3 places worse
paper 0.9070 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9070 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0032
49
GIN
0.9092
53
HGMAE
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.9060 ±0.0070
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.9060 ±0.0070
paper 0.9060 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0145
64
DMGI
0.8980 ±0.0010
This paper
68
HeCo
actual #68 vs paper #76 8 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0112
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #76 8 places worse
paper 0.8820 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8820 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0077
71
DMGIattn
0.8870 ±0.0050
This paper
77
Mp2vec
actual #77 vs paper #77
0.8810 ±0.0030
actual #77 vs paper #77
paper 0.8810 ±0.0030
paper 0.8810 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0828
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 0.7410 ±0.0010
paper 0.7410 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0768
109
MLP
0.7102 ±0.0221
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