Adaptive Multi-view Graph Contrastive Learning via Fractional-order Neural Diffusion Networks

Yanan Zhao, Feng Ji, Jingyang Dai, Jiaze Ma, Keyue Jiang, Kai Zhao, Wee Peng Tay

Main figure for Adaptive Multi-view Graph Contrastive Learning via Fractional-order Neural Diffusion Networks

Abstract

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) learns node and graph representations by contrasting multiple views of the same graph. Existing methods typically rely on fixed, handcrafted views-usually a local and a global perspective—which limits their ability to capture multi-scale structural patterns. We present an augmentation-free, multi-view GCL framework grounded in fractional-order continuous dynamics. By varying the fractional derivative order $ (0,1]$, our encoders produce a continuous spectrum of views: small $ $ yields localized features, while large $ $ induces broader, global aggregation. We treat $ $ as a learnable parameter so the model can adapt diffusion scales to the data and automatically discover informative views. This principled approach generates diverse, complementary representations without manual augmentations. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that our method produces more robust and expressive embeddings and outperforms state-of-the-art GCL baselines.

Proposed method: FD-MVGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
107
CI-GCL
0.7650 ±0.0010
This paper
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
201
FD-MVGCL
0.7542 ±0.0029
This paper
210
JOAO2
0.7535 ±0.0009
This paper
209
SimGRACE
0.7535 ±0.0009
This paper
226
DRGCL
0.7520 ±0.0060
This paper
251
MVGRL
actual #251 vs paper #309 58 places worse
0.7500 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #251 vs paper #309 58 places worse
paper 0.7402 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7402 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0098
265
GraphCL
actual #265 vs paper #296 31 places worse
0.7489 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #265 vs paper #296 31 places worse
paper 0.7439 ±0.0045

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7439 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.0050
283
JOAO
actual #283 vs paper #288 5 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #283 vs paper #288 5 places worse
paper 0.7455 ±0.0041

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7455 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0005
294
InfoGraph
0.7444 ±0.0040
This paper
343
GraphACL
0.7350 ±0.0070
This paper
357
SDMG
0.7316 ±0.0016
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
52
GREAD
actual #52 vs paper #318 266 places worse
0.8703 ±0.0495
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #318 266 places worse
paper 0.6624 ±0.0067
paper 0.6624 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.2079 Δ today 0.2079
107
GraphCON
actual #107 vs paper #310 203 places worse
0.8430 ±0.0480
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #310 203 places worse
paper 0.6703 ±0.0033
138
SAGE
0.8269
142
GRAND
actual #142 vs paper #257 115 places worse
0.8246 ±0.0709
best reported
actual #142 vs paper #257 115 places worse
paper 0.7270 ±0.0057

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7270 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0950 Δ today 0.0976
258
AVLA
0.7270 ±0.0057
This paper
373
CDE
0.6054 ±0.0392
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)