Toward General Digraph Contrastive Learning: A Dual Spatial Perspective

Daohan Su, Yang Zhang, Xunkai Li, Ronghua Li, Guoren Wang

Main figure for Toward General Digraph Contrastive Learning: A Dual Spatial Perspective

Abstract

Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has emerged as a powerful tool for extracting consistent representations from graphs, independent of labeled information. However, existing methods predominantly focus on undirected graphs, disregarding the pivotal directional information that is fundamental and indispensable in real-world networks (e.g., social networks and recommendations). In this paper, we introduce S2-DiGCL, a novel framework that emphasizes spatial insights from complex and real domain perspectives for directed graph (digraph) contrastive learning. From the complex-domain perspective, S2-DiGCL introduces personalized perturbations into the magnetic Laplacian to adaptively modulate edge phases and directional semantics. From the real-domain perspective, it employs a path-based subgraph augmentation strategy to capture fine-grained local asymmetries and topological dependencies. By jointly leveraging these two complementary spatial views, S2-DiGCL constructs high-quality positive and negative samples, leading to more general and robust digraph contrastive learning. Extensive experiments on 7 real-world digraph datasets demonstrate the superiority of our approach, achieving SOTA performance with 4.41\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 9 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #190 189 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #190 189 places worse
paper 0.7756 ±0.0029
paper 0.7756 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.1546
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #207 176 places worse
0.8533
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #207 176 places worse
paper 0.7700 ±0.0083
paper 0.7700 ±0.0083 Δ at pub 0.0833
94
GRACE
actual #94 vs paper #264 170 places worse
0.8014 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #264 170 places worse
paper 0.7049 ±0.0313
paper 0.7049 ±0.0313 Δ at pub 0.0965 Δ today 0.0965
107
DiGCN
actual #107 vs paper #187 80 places worse
0.7973 ±0.0057
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #187 80 places worse
paper 0.7763 ±0.0046
110
MagNet
actual #110 vs paper #212 102 places worse
0.7959 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #110 vs paper #212 102 places worse
paper 0.7674 ±0.0070
151
DGI
actual #151 vs paper #243 92 places worse
0.7865 ±0.0690
best reported
actual #151 vs paper #243 92 places worse
paper 0.7419 ±0.0290

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7419 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0446
161
S2-DiGCL
0.7842 ±0.0113
This paper
162
GCA
actual #162 vs paper #248 86 places worse
0.7840 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #248 86 places worse
paper 0.7282 ±0.0190
paper 0.7282 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0558 Δ today 0.0558
163
GraphCL
actual #163 vs paper #163
0.7837 ±0.0077
actual #163 vs paper #163
paper 0.7837 ±0.0077

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7837 ±0.0077 Δ at pub 0.0107
175
RAW-GNN
actual #175 vs paper #231 56 places worse
0.7801 ±0.0058
best reported
actual #175 vs paper #231 56 places worse
paper 0.7509 ±0.0026
paper 0.7509 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0292
226
UGCL
0.7543 ±0.0315
This paper
235
DiGCL
0.7483 ±0.0288
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #322 187 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #322 187 places worse
paper 0.3120 ±0.0051
paper 0.3120 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0570
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #362 180 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #362 180 places worse
paper 0.2941 ±0.0125
paper 0.2941 ±0.0125 Δ at pub 0.0664
198
S2-DiGCL
0.3571 ±0.0084
This paper
234
RAW-GNN
0.3508 ±0.0053
This paper
250
DiGCL
0.3453 ±0.0042
This paper
251
GRACE
actual #251 vs paper #332 81 places worse
0.3450 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #251 vs paper #332 81 places worse
paper 0.3072 ±0.0063
paper 0.3072 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.0378
272
DiGCN
0.3391 ±0.0102
This paper
278
UGCL
0.3363 ±0.0070
This paper
310
GraphCL
actual #310 vs paper #310
0.3151 ±0.0154
actual #310 vs paper #310
paper 0.3151 ±0.0154
paper 0.3151 ±0.0154 Δ at pub 0.0287
318
MagNet
0.3126 ±0.0067
This paper
335
DGI
actual #335 vs paper #335
0.3067 ±0.0063
actual #335 vs paper #335
paper 0.3067 ±0.0063

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3067 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.0085
361
GCA
actual #361 vs paper #362 1 place worse
0.2965
best reported
actual #361 vs paper #362 1 place worse
paper 0.2939 ±0.0097

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2939 ±0.0097 Δ at pub 0.0026
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere