GCCM: Enhancing Generative Graph Prediction via Contrastive Consistency Model

Shaozhen Ma, Wei Huang, Hanchen Wang, Dong Wen, Wenjie Zhang

Main figure for GCCM: Enhancing Generative Graph Prediction via Contrastive Consistency Model

Abstract

Conditional generative models, particularly diffusion-based methods, have recently been applied to graph prediction by modeling the target as a conditional distribution given the input graph, yielding competitive results compared to deterministic predictor. However, existing diffusion-based prediction methods typically require expensive iterative denoising at inference and often suffer from unstable sampling, which motivates recent efforts to reduce inference denoising steps and enable stable sampling via techniques such as consistency training. Despite this progress, we find that existing consistency training methods for graph prediction could potentially fall into a shortcut solution: the model may attempt to satisfy the self-consistency constraint by ignoring the noisy target (i.e., assigning it negligible weight), ultimately collapsing into a purely deterministic predictor. To mitigate such shortcut solution, we propose GCCM, a graph contrastive consistency model that goes beyond isolated pairwise matching between the same target at different noise levels by introducing negative pairs into a contrastive consistency objective. This adds an additional separation requirement, making the shortcut solution no longer trivially sufficient to satisfy the proposed objective. Moreover, we apply feature perturbation to the input node/edge features to break identical conditioning on the input graph, so that the shortcut no longer yields the same predictions across noise levels and becomes less attractive. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that GCCM mitigates the shortcut solution and yields consistent performance improvements in graph prediction compared to deterministic predictors.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 18 baseline values reported too low

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

LRGB

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
NeuralWalker
0.4912 ±0.0042
2
PPGT
0.4641 ±0.0033
3
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
14
GPS
actual #14 vs paper #44 30 places worse
0.4440 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #44 30 places worse
paper 0.3793 ±0.0171
paper 0.3793 ±0.0171 Δ at pub 0.0647 Δ today 0.0647
21
GCCM
0.4219 ±0.0102
This paper
25
GPS-PCL
0.4196 ±0.0086
This paper
39
GPS-LGD
0.3912 ±0.0207
This paper
41
GatedGCN
actual #41 vs paper #70 29 places worse
0.3880 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #70 29 places worse
paper 0.2873 ±0.0219
paper 0.2873 ±0.0219 Δ at pub 0.1007 Δ today 0.1007
42
Gated-GCN
0.3880 ±0.0040
66
SAN
0.3230 ±0.0039
This paper
81
GCN
actual #81 vs paper #92 11 places worse
0.2380 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #92 11 places worse
paper 0.1268 ±0.0060
paper 0.1268 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1112
93
MLP
0.1140 ±0.0230
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.4901
2
CRaWl
0.4588 ±0.0079
3
GPS
actual #3 vs paper #26 23 places worse
0.4440 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #26 23 places worse
paper 0.3453 ±0.0056
paper 0.3453 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0431 Δ today 0.0987
16
GatedGCN
actual #16 vs paper #34 18 places worse
0.3880 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #34 18 places worse
paper 0.2641 ±0.0045
paper 0.2641 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.0281 Δ today 0.1239
20
GCCM
0.3856 ±0.0021
This paper
21
GPS-PCL
0.3816 ±0.0058
This paper
33
Gated-GCN
0.2922 ±0.0018
37
SAN
0.2592 ±0.0158
This paper
45
GCN
actual #45 vs paper #61 16 places worse
0.2078 ±0.0031
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #61 16 places worse
paper 0.0841 ±0.0010
paper 0.0841 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0497 Δ today 0.1237
74
MLP
0.0310 ±0.0160

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Schrödinger
0.9913 ±0.0004
2
CNN
0.9907 ±0.0007
3
MPNN
0.9895 ±0.0006
11
GatedGCN
actual #11 vs paper #90 79 places worse
0.9855 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #90 79 places worse
paper 0.9734 ±0.0014
paper 0.9734 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0121
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #110 78 places worse
0.9833 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #110 78 places worse
paper 0.9648 ±0.0025
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.9648 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0075 Δ today 0.0184
37
GCCM
0.9824 ±0.0006
This paper
47
EGT
0.9817 ±0.0009
This paper
55
GPS-PCL
0.9811 ±0.0018
This paper
56
GRIT
0.9811 ±0.0011
This paper
59
GPS
actual #59 vs paper #59
0.9808 ±0.0011
actual #59 vs paper #59
paper 0.9808 ±0.0011

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9808 ±0.0011 Δ at pub 0.0003
75
PNA
0.9794 ±0.0012
This paper
86
GAT
actual #86 vs paper #121 35 places worse
0.9755 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #86 vs paper #121 35 places worse
paper 0.9554 ±0.0021
paper 0.9554 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0202
95
GraphSAGE
0.9731 ±0.0010
125
GPS-LGD
0.9546 ±0.0061
This paper
126
MLP
0.9534 ±0.0014
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #138 3 places worse
0.9405 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #138 3 places worse
paper 0.9071 ±0.0022
paper 0.9071 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0335
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
7
GRIT
0.7647 ±0.0088
This paper
38
PNA
actual #38 vs paper #67 29 places worse
0.7311 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #67 29 places worse
paper 0.7035 ±0.0063
paper 0.7035 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.0276
40
DGN
actual #40 vs paper #40
0.7284 ±0.0042
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #40
paper 0.7284 ±0.0042

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7284 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0000
43
GCCM
0.7250 ±0.0029
This paper
44
GIN-AK+
actual #44 vs paper #50 6 places worse
0.7239 ±0.0038
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #50 6 places worse
paper 0.7219 ±0.0013

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7219 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0020
46
GPS
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.7236 ±0.0032
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.7236 ±0.0032

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7236 ±0.0032 Δ at pub 0.0006
58
GPS-PCL
0.7183 ±0.0022
This paper
62
GatedGCN
actual #62 vs paper #90 28 places worse
0.7133 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #90 28 places worse
paper 0.6731 ±0.0031
paper 0.6731 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0402
68
GPS-LGD
0.7016 ±0.0036
This paper
82
EGT
0.6870 ±0.0041
This paper
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
101
GAT
actual #101 vs paper #112 11 places worse
0.6611 ±0.0098
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #112 11 places worse
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0189
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #129 20 places worse
0.6510 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #129 20 places worse
paper 0.5525 ±0.0153
paper 0.5525 ±0.0153 Δ at pub 0.0985
124
GCN
actual #124 vs paper #128 4 places worse
0.5839 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #128 4 places worse
paper 0.5571 ±0.0038
paper 0.5571 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0268
126
MLP
0.5634 ±0.0018
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Small
0.8159 ±0.0019
2
TANGO-GPS
0.8011 ±0.0014
3
GRIT
0.8003 ±0.0028
This paper
6
EGT
0.7923 ±0.0035
This paper
9
GCCM
0.7882 ±0.0019
This paper
17
GPS-PCL
0.7817 ±0.0023
This paper
22
GPS
actual #22 vs paper #27 5 places worse
0.7802 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #27 5 places worse
paper 0.7778 ±0.0024

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7778 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0024 Δ today 0.0024
48
GPS-LGD
0.7677 ±0.0030
This paper
50
SAN
0.7669 ±0.0065
This paper
54
GatedGCN
actual #54 vs paper #62 8 places worse
0.7608 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #62 8 places worse
paper 0.7384 ±0.0033
paper 0.7384 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0224
67
GAT
0.7059 ±0.0045
This paper
70
GCN
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
0.6903 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
paper 0.6850 ±0.0098

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6850 ±0.0098 Δ at pub 0.0053
79
GIN
0.6472 ±0.0155
This paper
80
GraphSAGE
0.6388 ±0.0011
114
MLP
0.2097 ±0.0000
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DeepGraph (48)
0.9066 ±0.0006
2
GRIT (our run)
0.9041 ±0.0023
3
GRIT 2-QiQRW
0.9016 ±0.0045
6
GRIT
actual #6 vs paper #7 1 place worse
0.8722 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #7 1 place worse
paper 0.8720 ±0.0008

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8720 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.0002
19
GIN-AK+
0.8685 ±0.0006
This paper
24
EGT
0.8682 ±0.0002
This paper
30
GCCM
0.8677 ±0.0004
This paper
48
GPS-PCL
0.8669 ±0.0007
This paper
50
GPS
actual #50 vs paper #54 4 places worse
0.8669 ±0.0590
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #54 4 places worse
paper 0.8665 ±0.0006

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8665 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0004
51
DGN
0.8668 ±0.0003
This paper
58
SAN
0.8658 ±0.0004
This paper
66
GatedGCN
actual #66 vs paper #91 25 places worse
0.8651 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #91 25 places worse
paper 0.8557 ±0.0009
best at pub: IJCAI--23 Formatting Instructions (IJCAI 2023)
paper 0.8557 ±0.0009 Δ at pub 0.0094
84
GPS-LGD
0.8566 ±0.0018
This paper
88
GCN
actual #88 vs paper #116 28 places worse
0.8561 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #116 28 places worse
paper 0.7189 ±0.0033
paper 0.7189 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.1372
89
GIN
actual #89 vs paper #94 5 places worse
0.8559 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #94 5 places worse
paper 0.8539 ±0.0014
best at pub: Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks (NeurIPS 2020)
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8539 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0020
107
GAT
0.7827 ±0.0019
This paper
123
MLP
0.5052
124
GraphSAGE
0.5052 ±0.0000
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)