Learning Feature Encoder with Synthetic Anomalies for Weakly Supervised Graph Anomaly Detection

Yingjie Zhou, Yuqin Xie, Fanxing Liu, Dongjin Song, Ce Zhu, Lingqiao Liu

Main figure for Learning Feature Encoder with Synthetic Anomalies for Weakly Supervised Graph Anomaly Detection

Abstract

Weakly supervised graph anomaly detection aims to unveil unusual graph instances, e.g., nodes, whose behaviors are significantly different from the normal ones, under the condition that only a limited number of annotated anomalies but abundant unlabeled samples are available. A major challenge for this task is to learn a meaningful latent feature representation that reduces intra-class variance among normal data while remaining highly sensitive to anomalies. Although recent works have applied self-supervised feature learning methods for graph anomaly detection, their strategies are not specifically tailored to the unique requirements of graph anomaly detection, which motivates our exploration of a more domain-specific feature learning approach. In this paper, we introduce a weakly supervised graph anomaly detection method that leverages a feature learning strategy specifically tailored for graph anomalies. Our approach is built upon a multi-task learning scheme designed to extract robust feature representations, through synthesized anomalies. We generate these synthetic anomalies by perturbing the normal graph in various ways and assign a dedicated detection head to each anomaly type. This design ensures that the learned features are sensitive to potential deviations from normal patterns. Although synthetic anomalies may not perfectly replicate real-world patterns, they provide valuable auxiliary data for effective feature learning—much like the way features learned from classifying ImageNet images are used in various downstream computer vision tasks. Additionally, we adopt a two-phase learning strategy to balance the influence of synthetic anomalies and real data. The process begins with an initial warm-up phase using only synthetic samples, followed by a full-training phase that integrates both tasks. Numerous experiments on public datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed strategy, in comparison with those of its competitors. Code is available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
NID_GAT
0.9703 ±0.0002
2
NID_GCN
0.9685 ±0.0010
3
UniGAP
0.8421 ±0.0080
16
GCN
actual #16 vs paper #163 147 places worse
0.7902 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #163 147 places worse
paper 0.4730 ±0.0800
26
GAT
actual #26 vs paper #135 109 places worse
0.7835 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #135 109 places worse
paper 0.6040 ±0.0200
paper 0.6040 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.1795
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #162 116 places worse
0.7721 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #162 116 places worse
paper 0.5020 ±0.0900
58
SAGE
0.7644 ±0.0062
96
MLP
actual #96 vs paper #134 38 places worse
0.7082 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #96 vs paper #134 38 places worse
paper 0.6090 ±0.0300
paper 0.6090 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0992
105
GATSep
actual #105 vs paper #131 26 places worse
0.6996
best reported
actual #105 vs paper #131 26 places worse
paper 0.6310 ±0.0100
paper 0.6310 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0686
110
BWGNN
actual #110 vs paper #134 24 places worse
0.6947
best reported
actual #110 vs paper #134 24 places worse
paper 0.6110 ±0.0300
paper 0.6110 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0837
114
PCGNN
actual #114 vs paper #141 27 places worse
0.6838
best reported
actual #114 vs paper #141 27 places worse
paper 0.5760 ±0.0200
paper 0.5760 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.1078
115
GHRN
actual #115 vs paper #135 20 places worse
0.6824
best reported
actual #115 vs paper #135 20 places worse
paper 0.6050 ±0.0200
paper 0.6050 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.0774
118
GIN
actual #118 vs paper #139 21 places worse
0.6776
best reported
actual #118 vs paper #139 21 places worse
paper 0.5890 ±0.0400
paper 0.5890 ±0.0400 Δ at pub 0.0886
124
weakly supervised graph anomaly detection method
0.6570 ±0.0200
This paper
131
ConsisGAD
actual #131 vs paper #131
0.6380 ±0.0600
actual #131 vs paper #131
paper 0.6380 ±0.0600

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6380 ±0.0600 Δ at pub 0.0643
135
CAREGNN
0.6060 ±0.0100
This paper
137
CGNN
0.5950 ±0.0600
This paper
144
H2FD
0.5650 ±0.0100
This paper

Other Graph Benchmarks

Amazon2M

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUROC; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use AUROC only.

Sorted by AUROC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUROC ↑Paper
1
weakly supervised graph anomaly detection method
0.9690 ±0.0100
This paper
2
ConsisGAD
actual #2 vs paper #2
0.9520 ±0.0100
actual #2 vs paper #2
paper 0.9520 ±0.0100
paper 0.9520 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0805
3
GGAD
0.9443
4
GATSep
0.9370 ±0.0100
This paper
6
GAT
0.9180 ±0.0100
This paper
8
GIN
0.9100 ±0.0100
This paper
9
CGNN
0.9090 ±0.0200
This paper
10
PCGNN
0.9070 ±0.0100
This paper
11
MLP
0.9030 ±0.0100
This paper
12
CAREGNN
0.8990 ±0.0100
This paper
13
GraphSAGE
0.8940 ±0.0100
This paper
15
BWGNN
actual #15 vs paper #15
0.8850 ±0.0200
actual #15 vs paper #15
paper 0.8850 ±0.0200
paper 0.8850 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.0538
16
GHRN
0.8850 ±0.0200
This paper
18
H2FD
0.8700 ±0.0100
This paper
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.8220
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.8220
paper 0.8220 Δ at pub 0.0875
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