Paper detail

Evaluating Modules in Graph Contrastive Learning

The recent emergence of contrastive learning approaches facilitates the application on graph representation learning (GRL), introducing graph contrastive learning (GCL) into the literature. These methods contrast semantically similar and dissimilar sample pairs to encode the semantics into node or graph embeddings. However, most existing works only performed \textbf{model-level} evaluation, and did not explore the combination space of modules for more comprehensive and systematic studies. For effective \textbf{module-level} evaluation, we propose a framework that decomposes GCL models into four modules: (1) a \textbf{sampler} to generate anchor, positive and negative data samples (nodes or graphs); (2) an \textbf{encoder} and a \textbf{readout} function to get sample embeddings; (3) a \textbf{discriminator} to score each sample pair (anchor-positive and anchor-negative); and (4) an \textbf{estimator} to define the loss function. Based on this framework, we conduct controlled experiments over a wide range of architectural designs and hyperparameter settings on node and graph classification tasks. Specifically, we manage to quantify the impact of a single module, investigate the interaction between modules, and compare the overall performance with current model architectures. Our key findings include a set of module-level guidelines for GCL, e.g., simple samplers from LINE and DeepWalk are strong and robust; an MLP encoder associated with Sum readout could achieve competitive performance on graph classification. Finally, we release our implementations and results as OpenGCL, a modularized toolkit that allows convenient reproduction, standard model and module evaluation, and easy extension. OpenGCL is available at \url{https://github.com/thunlp/OpenGCL}.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.