Adaptive Negative Scheduling for Graph Contrastive Learning
Abstract
Graph contrastive learning (GCL) has become a central paradigm for self-supervised representation learning in computational intelligence, with applications spanning recommendation, anomaly detection, and personalization. A key limitation of existing methods is their reliance on static negative sampling, which fails to account for the dynamic informativeness and computational cost of negatives during training. We propose AdNGCL, an adaptive negative scheduling framework with a hardness-aware scheduler (HANS) that formulates negative selection as a loss-gated, budget-constrained process across hard, intermediate, and easy strata. The scheduler dynamically adjusts step sizes based on contrastive loss trends under both global and per-category budgets, while periodically refreshing samples to maintain diversity without exceeding compute constraints. Experiments on nine benchmark graph datasets demonstrate that AdNGCL consistently advances state-of-the-art performance—achieving the best accuracy on seven datasets and second-best on the remaining two—while offering explicit control over computational cost. These results highlight the value of budget-aware, loss-sensitive scheduling as a general strategy for improving the robustness and efficiency of representation learning in emerging computational intelligence applications. Code:.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 9 datasets 24 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 | |
| 92 | AdNGCL | 0.8805
±0.0093 | This paper |
| 126 | NegAmp. | 0.8743
±0.0032 | This paper |
| 130 | BGRL | 0.8730
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 134 | GRACE | 0.8720
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 156 | MVGRL | 0.8680
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 177 | DGI | 0.8630
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 190 | USGCL | 0.8590
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 231 | GRAM | 0.8490
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 271 | COSTA | 0.8430
±0.0020 | prev best: Rethinking Graph Contrastive Learning through Relative Similarity Preservation (IJCAI 2025) |
| 365 | AdaS | 0.8351
±0.0118 | This paper |
| 414 | AF-GCL | 0.8316
±0.0013 | This paper |
| 450 | LG2AR | 0.8270
±0.0070 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 | |
| 66 | DGI | 0.7890
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 87 | MVGRL | 0.7808
±0.0006 best reported | |
| 123 | AdNGCL | 0.7650
±0.0105 | This paper |
| 136 | BGRL | 0.7600
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 140 | NegAmp. | 0.7592
±0.0088 | This paper |
| 141 | USGCL | 0.7590
±0.0060 | This paper |
| 201 | GRACE | 0.7450
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 314 | AdaS | 0.7316
±0.0078 | This paper |
| 337 | COSTA | 0.7290
±0.0030 | prev best: Rethinking Graph Contrastive Learning through Relative Similarity Preservation (IJCAI 2025) |
| 343 | GRAM | 0.7290
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 461 | AF-GCL | 0.7196
±0.0042 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 | |
| 144 | BGRL | 0.8830
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 165 | AdNGCL | 0.8781
±0.0041 | This paper |
| 194 | GRACE | 0.8730
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 196 | MVGRL | 0.8725
±0.0012 best reported | |
| 203 | NegAmp. | 0.8709
±0.0005 | This paper |
| 204 | DGI | 0.8708
±0.0017 best reported | |
| 208 | COSTA | 0.8698
±0.0033 best reported | |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 260 | GRAM | 0.8490
±0.0020 | This paper |
| 312 | USGCL | 0.8270
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 347 | LG2AR | 0.8150
±0.0070 | This paper |
| 346 | AF-GCL | 0.8150
±0.0070 | prev best: Augmentation-Free Graph Contrastive Learning with Performance Guarantee (2022) |
| 409 | AdaS | 0.8047
±0.0194 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 51 | AdNGCL | 0.9511 | This paper |
| 91 | USGCL | 0.9420
±0.0070 | This paper |
| 92 | LG2AR | 0.9410
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 96 | NegAmp. | 0.9409
±0.0039 | This paper |
| 113 | ProGCL | 0.9381
±0.0048 best reported | best at pub: Architecture Matters: Uncovering Implicit Mechanisms in Graph Contrastive Learning (NeurIPS 2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 130 | AFGRL | 0.9361
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Wiener Graph Deconvolutional Network Improves Graph Self-Supervised Learning (AAAI 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 149 | ABGML | 0.9350
±0.0040 best reported | best at pub: CORE: Contrastive Masked Feature Reconstruction on Graphs (2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 172 | BGRL | 0.9337
±0.0021 best reported | best at pub: Wiener Graph Deconvolutional Network Improves Graph Self-Supervised Learning (AAAI 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 191 | GCA | 0.9320
±0.0060 best reported | best at pub: Unifying Graph Contrastive Learning with Flexible Contextual Scopes (2022) best today: Decoupling Weighing and Selecting for Integrating Multiple Graph Pre-training Tasks (ICLR 2024) |
| 203 | GRACE | 0.9313
±0.0017 best reported | best at pub: Learn Beneficial Noise as Graph Augmentation (ICML 2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 206 | MVGRL | 0.9310
±0.0040 best reported | best at pub: Decoupling Weighing and Selecting for Integrating Multiple Graph Pre-training Tasks (ICLR 2024) |
| 213 | DGI | 0.9309
±0.0008 best reported | |
| 263 | COSTA | 0.9267
±0.0016 best reported | best at pub: Noise-Resilient Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning via Multi-Hop Feature Quality Estimation (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 284 | AF-GCL | 0.9249
±0.0031 | This paper |
| 390 | MLP | 0.9128
±0.0063 | |
| 420 | AdaS | 0.9063
±0.0113 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 36 | AdNGCL | 0.9176
±0.0029 | This paper |
| 55 | USGCL | 0.9100
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 75 | NegAmp. | 0.9043
±0.0025 | This paper |
| 79 | BGRL | 0.9034
±0.0019 | This paper |
| 84 | ABGML | 0.9020
±0.0030 best reported | best at pub: CORE: Contrastive Masked Feature Reconstruction on Graphs (2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 112 | AFGRL | 0.8988
±0.0033 | This paper |
| 127 | AF-GCL | 0.8968
±0.0019 | This paper |
| 131 | LG2AR | 0.8960
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 135 | ProGCL | 0.8955
±0.0016 | |
| 139 | GRACE | 0.8953
±0.0035 | This paper |
| 160 | GCA | 0.8894
±0.0015 | This paper |
| 179 | MVGRL | 0.8861
±0.0064 best reported | |
| 192 | COSTA | 0.8837
±0.0022 best reported | best at pub: HomoGCL: Rethinking Homophily in Graph Contrastive Learning (KDD 2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 210 | DGI | 0.8798
±0.0081 best reported | best at pub: Bootstrap Latents of Nodes and Neighbors for Graph Self-Supervised Learning (2024) |
| 320 | MLP | 0.8463 | |
| 435 | AdaS | 0.7910
±0.0165 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GCN | 0.9302
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | RSE + RGCN (70b) | 0.8852
±0.0019 | |
| 3 | LEMP+T | 0.8825 | |
| 9 | SAGE | 0.8771 | |
| 56 | AdNGCL | 0.8293
±0.0055 | This paper |
| 62 | NegAmp. | 0.8204
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 94 | GRACE | 0.8014
±0.0048 | This paper |
| 100 | BGRL | 0.8000
±0.0010 best reported | best at pub: Learning Graph Augmentations to Learn Graph Representations (2022) best today: PyG-SSL: A Graph Self-Supervised Learning Toolkit (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 129 | COSTA | 0.7912
±0.0002 | This paper |
| 133 | AF-GCL | 0.7901
±0.0051 | This paper |
| 143 | AFGRL | 0.7890
±0.0060 best reported | best at pub: PyG-SSL: A Graph Self-Supervised Learning Toolkit (2024) |
| 149 | ABGML | 0.7870
±0.0056 | This paper |
| 150 | ProGCL | 0.7868
±0.0012 | This paper |
| 151 | DGI | 0.7865
±0.0690 best reported | best at pub: Quantizing Text-attributed Graphs for Semantic-Structural Integration (KDD 2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 162 | GCA | 0.7840
±0.0013 best reported | best at pub: Learning Graph Augmentations to Learn Graph Representations (2022) best today: Augmentation-Free Graph Contrastive Learning with Performance Guarantee (2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 184 | LG2AR | 0.7780
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 190 | MVGRL | 0.7757
±0.0046 best reported | best at pub: Bootstrap Latents of Nodes and Neighbors for Graph Self-Supervised Learning (2024) best today: Negative-Free Self-Supervised Gaussian Embedding of Graphs (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 237 | MLP | 0.7469
±0.0085 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DoG | 0.9690
±0.0030 | |
| 2 | GWN-fa | 0.9667
±0.0026 | |
| 3 | GWN-sym | 0.9666
±0.0026 | |
| 6 | GraphSAGE | 0.9593
±0.0025 | |
| 17 | USGCL | 0.9480
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 22 | AdNGCL | 0.9430
±0.0023 | This paper |
| 35 | ProGCL | 0.9367
±0.0012 | This paper |
| 37 | LG2AR | 0.9360
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 38 | ABGML | 0.9360
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: CORE: Contrastive Masked Feature Reconstruction on Graphs (2025) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 43 | DGI | 0.9350
±0.0030 best reported | best at pub: PyG-SSL: A Graph Self-Supervised Learning Toolkit (2024) |
| 51 | GCA | 0.9332
±0.0012 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Smoothing: Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning with Edge Heterophily Discriminating (AAAI 2022) |
| 53 | BGRL | 0.9331
±0.0013 | This paper |
| 56 | AFGRL | 0.9330
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: PyG-SSL: A Graph Self-Supervised Learning Toolkit (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 59 | NegAmp. | 0.9326
±0.0008 | This paper |
| 69 | GRACE | 0.9301
±0.0003 best reported | best at pub: A Fused Gromov-Wasserstein Approach to Subgraph Contrastive Learning (TMLR 2025) |
| 76 | COSTA | 0.9295
±0.0012 | This paper |
| 88 | MLP | 0.9280
±0.0020 | |
| 116 | MVGRL | 0.9211
±0.0012 | This paper |
| 126 | AF-GCL | 0.9192
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 133 | AdaS | 0.9163
±0.0057 | This paper |
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 | |
| 251 | GRACE | 0.3450
±0.0110 best reported | best at pub: Graph Contrastive Learning under Heterophily via Graph Filters (2023) |
| 324 | NegAmp. | 0.3114
±0.0066 | This paper |
| 332 | AdNGCL | 0.3078
±0.0054 | This paper |
| 356 | BGRL | 0.2986 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Smoothing: Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning with Edge Heterophily Discriminating (AAAI 2022) |
Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks
DBLP
Global leaderboard →Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HG-SCM | 0.9490
±0.0015 | |
| 2 | SeHGNN | 0.9489
±0.0018 | |
| 3 | AdvSynGNN | 0.9486
±0.0012 | |
| 34 | DGI | 0.8800
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: I'm Me, We're Us, and I'm Us: Tri-directional Contrastive Learning on Hypergraphs (AAAI 2022) |
| 36 | GCN | 0.8758
±0.0020 | |
| 40 | AdNGCL | 0.8628
±0.0052 | This paper |
| 42 | NegAmplify | 0.8587
±0.0005 | This paper |
| 50 | GRAM | 0.8470
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 51 | COSTA | 0.8450
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 54 | GRACE | 0.8420
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 55 | BGRL | 0.8407
±0.0023 | This paper |
| 65 | MLP | 0.8118
±0.0020 |
