graph contrastive learning
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
- Asia > China > Beijing > Beijing (0.04)
Exploitation of a Latent Mechanism in Graph Contrastive Learning: Representation Scattering Dongxiao He
Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has emerged as a powerful approach for generating graph representations without the need for manual annotation. Most advanced GCL methods fall into three main frameworks: node discrimination, group discrimination, and bootstrapping schemes, all of which achieve comparable performance. However, the underlying mechanisms and factors that contribute to their effectiveness are not yet fully understood.
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.14)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Cook County > Chicago (0.04)
- Asia > China > Tianjin Province > Tianjin (0.04)
- (11 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Information Technology (0.67)
- Government (0.67)
- Social Sector (0.46)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area (0.46)
- Information Technology > Services (0.46)
Graph Contrastive Learning with Augmentations (Appendix) Yuning You
Superpixel graphs (statistics in Table S1) gain from all augmentations except attribute masking as shown in Figure S1. D Difficulty of Contrastive T asks v.s. Pairing "Identical" stands for a no-augmentation baseline for contrastive The baseline training-from-scratch accuracy is 79.71%. Performance on contrastive learning with different implemented subgraph. For subgraph, we propose the following variants with difficulty levels.
- North America > United States > Texas > Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Brazos County > College Station (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- North America > United States > Texas > Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Brazos County > College Station (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- North America > United States > Minnesota > Hennepin County > Minneapolis (0.14)
- North America > United States > Louisiana > Orleans Parish > New Orleans (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Los Angeles County > Long Beach (0.04)
- (11 more...)
Exploitation of a Latent Mechanism in Graph Contrastive Learning: Representation Scattering
Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has emerged as a powerful approach for generating graph representations without the need for manual annotation. Most advanced GCL methods fall into three main frameworks: node discrimination, group discrimination, and bootstrapping schemes, all of which achieve comparable performance. However, the underlying mechanisms and factors that contribute to their effectiveness are not yet fully understood. In this paper, we revisit these frameworks and reveal a common mechanism--representation scattering--that significantly enhances their performance. Our discovery highlights an essential feature of GCL and unifies these seemingly disparate methods under the concept of representation scattering. To leverage this insight, we introduce Scattering Graph Representation Learning (SGRL), a novel framework that incorporates a new representation scattering mechanism designed to enhance representation diversity through a center-away strategy. Additionally, consider the interconnected nature of graphs, we develop a topology-based constraint mechanism that integrates graph structural properties with representation scattering to prevent excessive scattering. We extensively evaluate SGRL across various downstream tasks on benchmark datasets, demonstrating its efficacy and superiority over existing GCL methods. Our findings underscore the significance of representation scattering in GCL and provide a structured framework for harnessing this mechanism to advance graph representation learning.
Provable Training for Graph Contrastive Learning
Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has emerged as a popular training approach for learning node embeddings from augmented graphs without labels. Despite the key principle that maximizing the similarity between positive node pairs while minimizing it between negative node pairs is well established, some fundamental problems are still unclear. Considering the complex graph structure, are some nodes consistently well-trained and following this principle even with different graph augmentations? Or are there some nodes more likely to be untrained across graph augmentations and violate the principle? How to distinguish these nodes and further guide the training of GCL?