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? To answer these questions, we first present experimental evidence showing that the training of GCL is indeed imbalanced across all nodes. To address this problem, we propose the metric "node compactness", which is the lower bound of how a node follows the GCL principle related to the range of augmentations. We further derive the form of node compactness theoretically through bound propagation, which can be integrated into binary cross-entropy as a regularization. To this end, we propose the PrOvable Training (POT) for GCL, which regularizes the training of GCL to encode node embeddings that follows the GCL principle better. Through extensive experiments on various benchmarks, POT consistently improves the existing GCL approaches, serving as a friendly plugin.

Paper

References (39)

Scroll for more · 27 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer AXri8/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-05

Summary

The goal of this paper is to investigate the properties of different nodes in GCL with different graph augmentations. The paper discovers the imbalanced training issue of GCL methods, and proposes the concept “node compactness”, measuring how each node follows the GCL principle. Finally, the paper proposes the node compactness regularization, and shows its effectiveness by combining it with existing GCL methods.

Strengths

- The paper is well motivated with both theoretical and empirical analysis. - The paper provides some interesting insights on the node properties in GCL. - The effectiveness of the proposed model is well demonstrated by the empirical results.

Weaknesses

- One of the motivations is that “how to distinguish these nodes”, while it seems that the paper doesn’t distinguish these nodes? - Although the presentation is good enough, I’m not very clear with the whole training process because of the math-heavy part in the technique part. Do we need to compute the POT first, and then train InfoNCE loss? Or do we need to train the model with the two steps iteratively? - In theorem 1, the conclusion is obtained under the condition that AXW+b, so if the GCN process is not AXW+b, can we still use POT regularization?

Questions

See Weaknesses

Rating

8: Strong Accept: Technically strong paper, with novel ideas, excellent impact on at least one area, or high-to-excellent impact on multiple areas, with excellent evaluation, resources, and reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

4 excellent

Limitations

The discussion section of the paper is concise but unsatisfactory in addressing the main points.

Reviewer Kesd7/10 · confidence 5/52023-07-05

Summary

The paper considers an important problem in graph contrastive learning, i.e., the relationship between the node property with the graph augmentations. The main takeaway is that the training of GCL on different nodes is imbalanced, and the concept “node compactness” is introduced to guarantee the training of GCL is provable. This is demonstrated on eight benchmarks.

Strengths

S1. The paper topic is interesting. S2. The theoretical foundation is solid. S3. The paper is relatively well-written and well-organized.

Weaknesses

The experiments section could be strengthened. I’m not sure that whether the following experiment needs to be conducted. Specifically, the paper aims to discover the nodes that are not sensitive to different graph augmentations. However, there is no experiment to analyze this, i.e., maybe we can generate different graph augmentations to check whether some nodes are always well trained, or not well trained? Moreover, some notations are not described, e.g., [ ]+ and [ ]- in Theorem 1. Also, why the curve of traditional GCL methods decreases with the increase of Epoch in Fig.2?

Questions

See the above weakness.

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

4 excellent

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer QmjC7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-06

Summary

Graph augmentation is a fundamental component for graph contrastive learning. When augmenting graph structures, how the change of structures affects the GCL is an interesting problem. In this work, the paper proposes the “node compactness” to describe the behavior of different nodes, i.e., whether there are some nodes consistently stable enough to the training process with different graph augmentations. With this concept, the paper designs a new POT regularization term as a plug-in, which enables the training process of nodes to follow the GCL principle, so as to improve the performance of GCL finally.

Strengths

1. The paper studies an important and challenging problem. The idea of node compactness is novel. 2. Using bound propagation to derive node compactness in GCL is also interesting and technically sound. 3. Thorough experiments are conducted to validate how the proposed model works.

Weaknesses

1. Some techniques are not introduced clearly (see comments below). 2. Some experimental results are also not clearly explained (see comments below).

Questions

1. The first constraint in Definition 3 requires the graph augmentation is edge dropping. Does that mean the proposed provable training is only suitable for edge dropping? 2. The experiment analyzes the relationship between the node compactness with the properties of different augmentation strategies, while some statements are not well explained, which may be hard to understand. Specifically, why does a higher degree result in larger node compactness? Why the results in Fig.3 are reasonable? More details should be provided.

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

4 excellent

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer ynwF7/10 · confidence 5/52023-07-07

Summary

The paper aims at studying the node properties given different graph augmentations in graph contrastive learning. It has the following contributions. 1) It discovers the training of GCL methods is severely imbalanced. 2) It proposes a novel concept of “node compactness”, and the provable training for GCL with the concept. 3) Besides the theoretical analysis, the paper uses extensive numerical results to show the effectiveness of the proposed method. Generally, the paper is interesting and easy to follow.

Strengths

- The paper addresses an important problem in the GCL community and is engaging to read. - The technical contribution of the paper is novel and brings a fresh perspective to the field. - The proposed model is thoroughly evaluated on various benchmarks, demonstrating its effectiveness and providing strong evidence for its performance.

Weaknesses

- The experiment section may lack some essential components or details, and therefore it could be considered insufficient. - The discussion on the limitations of the proposed method is relatively brief. It would be beneficial to expand on this section and provide a more comprehensive analysis of the limitations and potential challenges associated with the proposed approach.

Questions

- In Section 3, the authors observe the training imbalance in GCL and propose to address it using POT. Although they present node compactness results, they do not show the InfoNCE loss in the experiments, unlike in Figure 3. It would be helpful to include the InfoNCE loss in the experiment to provide a comprehensive evaluation. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate if POT can also improve the InfoNCE loss. - The paper discusses various graph augmentations, and it would be valuable for the authors to provide a more specific discussion on how the proposed POT method can enhance existing GCL methods with different graph augmentations. Exploring the applicability of POT to different augmentation strategies would contribute to a more thorough understanding of its potential benefits.

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

4 excellent

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer AXri2023-08-21

Thanks for the detailed response and clairification. I appreciate the authors' effort, which have addressed my concerns and corrected my misunderstanding. I'm willing to increase my rating.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (spotlight)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC