Trustworthy Neighborhoods Mining: Homophily-Aware Neutral Contrastive Learning for Graph Clustering

Liang Peng, Yixuan Ye, Cheng Liu, Hangjun Che, Man-Fai Leung, Si Wu, Hau-San Wong

Main figure for Trustworthy Neighborhoods Mining: Homophily-Aware Neutral Contrastive Learning for Graph Clustering

Abstract

Recently, neighbor-based contrastive learning has been introduced to effectively exploit neighborhood information for clustering. However, these methods rely on the homophily assumption—that connected nodes share similar class labels and should therefore be close in feature space—which fails to account for the varying homophily levels in real-world graphs. As a result, applying contrastive learning to low-homophily graphs may lead to indistinguishable node representations due to unreliable neighborhood information, making it challenging to identify trustworthy neighborhoods with varying homophily levels in graph clustering. To tackle this, we introduce a novel neighborhood Neutral Contrastive Graph Clustering method NeuCGC that extends traditional contrastive learning by incorporating neutral pairs—node pairs treated as weighted positive pairs, rather than strictly positive or negative. These neutral pairs are dynamically adjusted based on the graph’s homophily level, enabling a more flexible and robust learning process. Leveraging neutral pairs in contrastive learning, our method incorporates two key components: 1) an adaptive contrastive neighborhood distribution alignment that adjusts based on the homophily level of the given attribute graph, ensuring effective alignment of neighborhood distributions, and 2) a contrastive neighborhood node feature consistency learning mechanism that leverages reliable neighborhood information from high-confidence graphs to learn robust node representations, mitigating the adverse effects of varying homophily levels and effectively exploiting highly trustworthy neighborhood information. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our approach, outperforming other state-of-the-art graph clustering methods. Our code is available at.

Proposed method: NeuCGC

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 7 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
324
HeterGCL
actual #324 vs paper #437 113 places worse
0.7470 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #324 vs paper #437 113 places worse
paper 0.6550 ±0.0380
paper 0.6550 ±0.0380 Δ at pub 0.0920
331
GraphMAE
actual #331 vs paper #571 240 places worse
0.7432 ±0.0456
best reported
actual #331 vs paper #571 240 places worse
paper 0.5460 ±0.0230
paper 0.5460 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.1972
364
NeuCGC
0.7250 ±0.0050
This paper
383
GraphACL
actual #383 vs paper #493 110 places worse
0.7108 ±0.0034
best reported
actual #383 vs paper #493 110 places worse
paper 0.6070 ±0.0170
paper 0.6070 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.1038 Δ today 0.1038
488
DCRN
actual #488 vs paper #594 106 places worse
0.6126 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #488 vs paper #594 106 places worse
paper 0.4730 ±0.0020
paper 0.4730 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.1396
495
DFCN
actual #495 vs paper #576 81 places worse
0.6060 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #495 vs paper #576 81 places worse
paper 0.5170 ±0.0170
paper 0.5170 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0890
504
CONVERT
0.5990 ±0.0200
This paper
508
HSAN
actual #508 vs paper #582 74 places worse
0.5978 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #508 vs paper #582 74 places worse
paper 0.4980 ±0.0290
paper 0.4980 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0998
517
SDCN
actual #517 vs paper #604 87 places worse
0.5940 ±0.0171
best reported
actual #517 vs paper #604 87 places worse
paper 0.4260 ±0.0050
paper 0.4260 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.1680
583
AutoSSL
0.4980 ±0.0220
This paper
591
DyFSS
0.4860 ±0.0110
This paper
594
CCGC
0.4790 ±0.0350
This paper
598
SCGC
0.4590 ±0.0460
This paper
604
AGC-DRR
0.4320 ±0.0390
This paper
606
DGCluster
0.4250 ±0.0350
This paper
607
SCAGC
0.4020 ±0.0080
This paper
610
NCLA
0.3820 ±0.0330
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)