WWW 2025

Str-GCL: Structural Commonsense Driven Graph Contrastive Learning

Dongxiao He, Yongqi Huang, Jitao Zhao, Xiaobao Wang, Zhen Wang

Main figure for Str-GCL: Structural Commonsense Driven Graph Contrastive Learning

Abstract

Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) is a widely adopted approach in self-supervised graph representation learning, applying contrastive objectives to produce effective representations. However, current GCL methods primarily focus on capturing implicit semantic relationships, often overlooking the structural commonsense embedded within the graph’s structure and attributes, which contains underlying knowledge crucial for effective representation learning. Due to the lack of explicit information and clear guidance in general graph, identifying and integrating such structural commonsense in GCL poses a significant challenge. To address this gap, we propose a novel framework called Structural Commonsense Unveiling in Graph Contrastive Learning (Str-GCL). Str-GCL leverages first-order logic rules to represent structural commonsense and explicitly integrates them into the GCL framework. It introduces topological and attribute-based rules without altering the original graph and employs a representation alignment mechanism to guide the encoder in effectively capturing this commonsense. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to directly incorporate structural commonsense into GCL. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Str-GCL outperforms existing GCL methods, providing a new perspective on leveraging structural commonsense in graph representation learning.

Proposed method: Str-GCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 18 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#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
105
Str-GCL
0.9390 ±0.0026
This paper
113
ProGCL
actual #113 vs paper #277 164 places worse
0.9381 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #277 164 places worse
paper 0.9255 ±0.0038
paper 0.9255 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0126
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #250 78 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #250 78 places worse
paper 0.9275 ±0.0022
paper 0.9275 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0062
184
Supervised GCN
actual #184 vs paper #292 108 places worse
0.9328 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #292 108 places worse
paper 0.9242
paper 0.9242 Δ at pub 0.0086
186
CCA-SSG
actual #186 vs paper #250 64 places worse
0.9325 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #186 vs paper #250 64 places worse
paper 0.9274 ±0.0031
paper 0.9274 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0051
188
Local-GCL
actual #188 vs paper #232 44 places worse
0.9325 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #188 vs paper #232 44 places worse
paper 0.9286 ±0.0023
paper 0.9286 ±0.0023 Δ at pub 0.0039
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #359 168 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #359 168 places worse
paper 0.9175 ±0.0029
202
PiGCL
0.9314 ±0.0030
This paper
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #346 143 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #346 143 places worse
paper 0.9192 ±0.0030
paper 0.9192 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0088 Δ today 0.0121
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #344 138 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #344 138 places worse
paper 0.9194 ±0.0027
paper 0.9194 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0116
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #244 31 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #244 31 places worse
paper 0.9278 ±0.0014
222
HomoGCL
actual #222 vs paper #305 83 places worse
0.9300 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #222 vs paper #305 83 places worse
paper 0.9235 ±0.0022
paper 0.9235 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0065
235
GBT
actual #235 vs paper #235
0.9282 ±0.0040
actual #235 vs paper #235
paper 0.9282 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9282 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0019
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
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
446
DeepWalk + features
0.9005
This paper
457
Node2Vec
actual #457 vs paper #458 1 place worse
0.8970 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #457 vs paper #458 1 place worse
paper 0.8967

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8967 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0003
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
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #223 144 places worse
0.9034 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #223 144 places worse
paper 0.8772 ±0.0024
paper 0.8772 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0262 Δ today 0.0262
86
Str-GCL
0.9019 ±0.0016
This paper
135
ProGCL
actual #135 vs paper #224 89 places worse
0.8955 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #224 89 places worse
paper 0.8769 ±0.0022
paper 0.8769 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0159 Δ today 0.0186
138
Local-GCL
0.8954 ±0.0032
This paper
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #200 61 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #200 61 places worse
paper 0.8819 ±0.0041
paper 0.8819 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0134 Δ today 0.0134
149
PiGCL
0.8925 ±0.0027
This paper
157
HomoGCL
actual #157 vs paper #169 12 places worse
0.8900 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #169 12 places worse
paper 0.8880 ±0.0025

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8880 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0020
159
CCA-SSG
actual #159 vs paper #159
0.8896 ±0.0013
actual #159 vs paper #159
paper 0.8896 ±0.0013

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8896 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0020
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #267 107 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #267 107 places worse
paper 0.8658 ±0.0032
paper 0.8658 ±0.0032 Δ at pub 0.0236 Δ today 0.0236
165
GBT
actual #165 vs paper #165
0.8885 ±0.0025
actual #165 vs paper #165
paper 0.8885 ±0.0025

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8885 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0035
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #289 110 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #289 110 places worse
paper 0.8600 ±0.0032
205
Supervised GCN
actual #205 vs paper #269 64 places worse
0.8811 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #205 vs paper #269 64 places worse
paper 0.8651
paper 0.8651 Δ at pub 0.0160
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #221 11 places worse
0.8798 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #221 11 places worse
paper 0.8777 ±0.0036

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8777 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.0021
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
281
DeepWalk + features
0.8628
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
330
Node2Vec
actual #330 vs paper #334 4 places worse
0.8440 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #334 4 places worse
paper 0.8439

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8439 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0001
456
Raw features
0.7381
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