SPGCL: Simple yet Powerful Graph Contrastive Learning via SVD-Guided Structural Perturbation

Hao Deng, Zhang Guo, Shuiping Gou, Bo Liu

Main figure for SPGCL: Simple yet Powerful Graph Contrastive Learning via SVD-Guided Structural Perturbation

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are highly sensitive to structural noise, including spurious or missing edges caused by adversarial attacks or non-adversarial imperfections. Existing graph contrastive learning methods typically rely on either random perturbations (e.g., edge dropping) to ensure view diversity, or purely spectral augmentations (e.g., SVD) to preserve global structural priors. However, random perturbations are structure-agnostic and may inadvertently remove critical edges, while purely SVD-based views tend to be dense and lack sufficient diversity. More fundamentally, despite their complementary strengths, there exists no straightforward way to integrate these two fundamentally different paradigms: one operates on discrete edge removal while the other relies on continuous matrix factorization. To bridge this non-trivial gap, we propose SPGCL, a simple yet powerful framework for robust graph contrastive learning via SVD-guided structural perturbation. Our key insight lies in leveraging a recently developed SVD-based perturbation method, which generalizes the classical structural perturbation theory from symmetric to arbitrary graphs. We creatively adapt this technique to contrastive learning by designing a concise two-stage perturbation strategy: first, a lightweight stochastic edge removal injects necessary diversity; second, truncated SVD is applied to derive a structure-aware scoring matrix, followed by sparse top-$P$ edge recovery. This synergistic integration delivers three key advantages: (1) Robustness to accidental deletion - important edges removed in the first stage can be recovered by SVD-guided scoring, mitigating harmful effects while preserving diversity. (2) Enrichment with missing links - the SVD-based scoring can introduce new, semantically meaningful edges absent in the original graph, creating a more informative contrastive view. (3) Controllable structural discrepancy – by balancing edge removal and recovery rates, we explicitly control the edge count between views, ensuring that the contrastive signal stems from semantic structural differences rather than trivial edge-number gaps. Furthermore, we incorporate a contrastive fusion module regularized by a global similarity constraint to align node embeddings across views. Extensive experiments on ten benchmark datasets demonstrate that SPGCL consistently improves the robustness and accuracy of base GNNs, outperforming state-of-the-art graph contrastive learning and structure learning methods, thereby validating its simplicity, effectiveness, and innovative integration of previously disparate paradigms.

Proposed method: SPGCL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 37 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #654 633 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #654 633 places worse
paper 0.8010
paper 0.8010 Δ at pub 0.0994
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #624 581 places worse
0.8900
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #624 581 places worse
paper 0.8070
paper 0.8070 Δ at pub 0.0830
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #618 574 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #618 574 places worse
paper 0.8080
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #614 473 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #614 473 places worse
paper 0.8090
paper 0.8090 Δ at pub 0.0618
207
Geom-GCN
actual #207 vs paper #814 607 places worse
0.8540 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #207 vs paper #814 607 places worse
paper 0.7080
paper 0.7080 Δ at pub 0.1460
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #656 433 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #656 433 places worse
paper 0.8000

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8000 Δ at pub 0.0509
309
LDS
actual #309 vs paper #628 319 places worse
0.8390 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #309 vs paper #628 319 places worse
paper 0.8060
paper 0.8060 Δ at pub 0.0330 Δ today 0.0330
418
SPGCL
0.8310
This paper
584
Pro-GNN
actual #584 vs paper #584
0.8130
actual #584 vs paper #584
paper 0.8130
paper 0.8130 Δ at pub 0.0220
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
24
DropEdge
actual #24 vs paper #561 537 places worse
0.8130
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #561 537 places worse
paper 0.7090
paper 0.7090 Δ at pub 0.1040
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #655 620 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #655 620 places worse
paper 0.6890
paper 0.6890 Δ at pub 0.1190
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #610 566 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #610 566 places worse
paper 0.7020
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #504 443 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #504 443 places worse
paper 0.7150
paper 0.7150 Δ at pub 0.0773
88
Geom-GCN
actual #88 vs paper #834 746 places worse
0.7799 ±0.0115
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #834 746 places worse
paper 0.5917
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #519 423 places worse
0.7765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #96 vs paper #519 423 places worse
paper 0.7140
186
LDS
actual #186 vs paper #549 363 places worse
0.7480 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #186 vs paper #549 363 places worse
paper 0.7112
paper 0.7112 Δ at pub 0.0368
212
SPGCL
0.7430
This paper
259
SAGE
0.7361 ±0.0190
294
Pro-GNN
actual #294 vs paper #504 210 places worse
0.7330 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #294 vs paper #504 210 places worse
paper 0.7150
paper 0.7150 Δ at pub 0.0180
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #508 506 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #508 506 places worse
paper 0.8497
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #564 556 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #564 556 places worse
paper 0.5523
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #575 525 places worse
0.9511 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #575 525 places worse
paper 0.2536
56
GraphSAGE
actual #56 vs paper #494 438 places worse
0.9508 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #494 438 places worse
paper 0.8758
paper 0.8758 Δ at pub 0.0750
306
Geom-GCN
actual #306 vs paper #575 269 places worse
0.9235 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #306 vs paper #575 269 places worse
paper 0.2532
paper 0.2532 Δ today 0.6703
324
DropEdge
actual #324 vs paper #547 223 places worse
0.9221
best reported
actual #324 vs paper #547 223 places worse
paper 0.7540
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
406
SPGCL
0.9084
This paper
558
Pro-GNN
0.7059
This paper
565
LDS
0.5261
This paper

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
actual #68 vs paper #273 205 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #273 205 places worse
paper 0.3384
paper 0.3384 Δ at pub 0.0515
87
Geom-GCN
actual #87 vs paper #430 343 places worse
0.3810
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #430 343 places worse
paper 0.2531
paper 0.2531 Δ at pub 0.1279
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #376 241 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #376 241 places worse
paper 0.2891
paper 0.2891 Δ at pub 0.0799
144
DropEdge
actual #144 vs paper #383 239 places worse
0.3680 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #144 vs paper #383 239 places worse
paper 0.2862
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #385 203 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #385 203 places worse
paper 0.2854
paper 0.2854 Δ at pub 0.0751
237
SGC
actual #237 vs paper #412 175 places worse
0.3490 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #237 vs paper #412 175 places worse
paper 0.2666
paper 0.2666 Δ at pub 0.0824
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
326
LDS
actual #326 vs paper #384 58 places worse
0.3105 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #384 58 places worse
paper 0.2856
paper 0.2856 Δ at pub 0.0249
328
SPGCL
0.3092
This paper
330
Pro-GNN
0.3083
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #229 226 places worse
0.8560
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #229 226 places worse
paper 0.4412
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #268 216 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #268 216 places worse
paper 0.3521
paper 0.3521 Δ at pub 0.3512
76
SGC
actual #76 vs paper #268 192 places worse
0.6710 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #268 192 places worse
paper 0.3464
paper 0.3464 Δ at pub 0.3246
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
115
GraphSAGE
actual #115 vs paper #212 97 places worse
0.6215 ±0.0042
best reported
actual #115 vs paper #212 97 places worse
paper 0.4734
paper 0.4734 Δ at pub 0.1481
118
SPGCL
0.6184
This paper
124
Geom-GCN
actual #124 vs paper #282 158 places worse
0.6090
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #282 158 places worse
paper 0.2607
paper 0.2607 Δ at pub 0.3483 Δ today 0.3483
160
Pro-GNN
0.5620
This paper
169
MLP
0.5429
238
DropEdge
actual #238 vs paper #270 32 places worse
0.4310 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #238 vs paper #270 32 places worse
paper 0.3242
266
LDS
0.3675
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #250 204 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #250 204 places worse
paper 0.2774
paper 0.2774 Δ at pub 0.3293
67
GAT
actual #67 vs paper #254 187 places worse
0.5630 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #67 vs paper #254 187 places worse
paper 0.2728
paper 0.2728 Δ at pub 0.2902
81
SGC
actual #81 vs paper #249 168 places worse
0.5230 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #249 168 places worse
paper 0.2787
paper 0.2787 Δ at pub 0.2443
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
128
GraphSAGE
actual #128 vs paper #229 101 places worse
0.4378 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #128 vs paper #229 101 places worse
paper 0.3374
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079
178
SPGCL
0.3862
This paper
179
Geom-GCN
actual #179 vs paper #266 87 places worse
0.3832 ±0.0092
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #266 87 places worse
paper 0.2437
221
Pro-GNN
0.3497
This paper
250
LDS
0.2787
This paper
262
DropEdge
0.2527
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere