Generative and Contrastive Paradigms Are Complementary for Graph Self-Supervised Learning
October 24, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Yuxiang Wang, Xiao Yan, Chuang Hu, Fangcheng Fu, Wentao Zhang, Hao Wang, Shuo Shang, Jiawei Jiang
arXiv ID
2310.15523
Category
cs.LG: Machine Learning
Cross-listed
cs.AI
Citations
16
Venue
IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
For graph self-supervised learning (GSSL), masked autoencoder (MAE) follows the generative paradigm and learns to reconstruct masked graph edges or node features. Contrastive Learning (CL) maximizes the similarity between augmented views of the same graph and is widely used for GSSL. However, MAE and CL are considered separately in existing works for GSSL. We observe that the MAE and CL paradigms are complementary and propose the graph contrastive masked autoencoder (GCMAE) framework to unify them. Specifically, by focusing on local edges or node features, MAE cannot capture global information of the graph and is sensitive to particular edges and features. On the contrary, CL excels in extracting global information because it considers the relation between graphs. As such, we equip GCMAE with an MAE branch and a CL branch, and the two branches share a common encoder, which allows the MAE branch to exploit the global information extracted by the CL branch. To force GCMAE to capture global graph structures, we train it to reconstruct the entire adjacency matrix instead of only the masked edges as in existing works. Moreover, a discrimination loss is proposed for feature reconstruction, which improves the disparity between node embeddings rather than reducing the reconstruction error to tackle the feature smoothing problem of MAE. We evaluate GCMAE on four popular graph tasks (i.e., node classification, node clustering, link prediction, and graph classification) and compare with 14 state-of-the-art baselines. The results show that GCMAE consistently provides good accuracy across these tasks, and the maximum accuracy improvement is up to 3.2% compared with the best-performing baseline.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted