skip to main content
10.1145/3534678.3539425acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

COSTA: Covariance-Preserving Feature Augmentation for Graph Contrastive Learning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Graph contrastive learning (GCL) improves graph representation learning, leading to SOTA on various downstream tasks. The graph augmentation step is a vital but scarcely studied step of GCL. In this paper, we show that the node embedding obtained via the graph augmentations is highly biased, somewhat limiting contrastive models from learning discriminative features for downstream tasks.Thus, instead of investigating graph augmentation in the input space, we alternatively propose to perform augmentations on the hidden features (feature augmentation). Inspired by so-called matrix sketching, we propose COSTA, a novel Covariance-preServing feaTure space Augmentation framework for GCL, which generates augmented features by maintaining a "good sketch" of original features. To highlight the superiority of feature augmentation with COSTA, we investigate a single-view setting (in addition to multi-view one) which conserves memory and computations. We show that the feature augmentation with COSTA achieves comparable/better results than graph augmentation based models.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

KDD22-fp2345.mp4

mp4

8.3 MB

References

  1. Philip Bachman, R Devon Hjelm, and William Buchwalter. 2019. Learning representations by maximizing mutual information across views. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00910 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Piotr Bielak, Tomasz Kajdanowicz, and Nitesh V Chawla. 2021. Graph Barlow Twins: A self-supervised representation learning framework for graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02466 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1597--1607.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Yankai Chen, Menglin Yang, Yingxue Zhang, Mengchen Zhao, Ziqiao Meng, Jianye Hao, and Irwin King. 2022. Modeling Scale-free Graphs with Hyperbolic Geometry for Knowledge-aware Recommendation. In WSDM '22: The Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Yankai Chen, Yaming Yang, Yujing Wang, Jing Bai, Xiangchen Song, and Irwin King. 2022. Attentive Knowledge-aware Graph Convolutional Networks with Collaborative Guidance for Personalized Recommendation. In The 38th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. 2017. Dataset augmentation in feature space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05538 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Petros Drineas, Ravi Kannan, and Michael W Mahoney. 2006. Fast Monte Carlo algorithms for matrices I: Approximating matrix multiplication. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 1 (2006), 132--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Steven Y Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03075 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08821 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gene H Golub, Alan Hoffman, and Gilbert W Stewart. 1987. A generalization of the Eckart-Young-Mirsky matrix approximation theorem. Linear Algebra and its applications 88 (1987), 317--327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. 2016. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 855--864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hakim Hafidi, Mounir Ghogho, Philippe Ciblat, and Ananthram Swami. 2020. Graphcl: Contrastive self-supervised learning of graph representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08025 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. William L Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 1025--1035.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bharath Hariharan and Ross Girshick. 2017. Low-shot visual recognition by shrinking and hallucinating features. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 3018--3027.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kaveh Hassani and Amir Hosein Khasahmadi. 2020. Contrastive multi-view representation learning on graphs. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 4116--4126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, YuxinWu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9729--9738.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Thomas N Kipf and MaxWelling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Variational graph auto-encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Piotr Koniusz and Hongguang Zhang. 2020. Power Normalizations in Finegrained Image, Few-shot Image and Graph Classification. In IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3107164Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ping Li, Trevor J Hastie, and Kenneth W Church. 2006. Very sparse random projections. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 287--296.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Edo Liberty. 2013. Simple and deterministic matrix sketching. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 581--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2015. Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes. In Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 43--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Péter Mernyei and Cătălina Cangea. 2020. Wiki-cs: A wikipedia-based benchmark for graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.02901 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12 (2011), 2825--2830.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhen Peng, Wenbing Huang, Minnan Luo, Qinghua Zheng, Yu Rong, Tingyang Xu, and Junzhou Huang. 2020. Graph representation learning via graphical mutual information maximization. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. 2014. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 701--710.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Connor Shorten and Taghi M Khoshgoftaar. 2019. A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning. Journal of Big Data 6, 1 (2019), 1--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Arnab Sinha, Zhihong Shen, Yang Song, Hao Ma, Darrin Eide, Bo-June Hsu, and Kuansan Wang. 2015. An overview of microsoft academic service (mas) and applications. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web. 243--246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Zixing Song, Ziqiao Meng, Yifei Zhang, and Irwin King. 2021. Semi-supervised Multi-label Learning for Graph-structured Data. In CIKM. ACM, 1723--1733.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Zixing Song, Xiangli Yang, Zenglin Xu, and Irwin King. 2022. Graph-Based Semi-Supervised Learning: A Comprehensive Review. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2022), 1--21. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS. 2022.3155478Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ke Sun, Piotr Koniusz, and Zhen Wang. 2019. Fisher-Bures Adversary Graph Convolutional Networks. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 115 (2019), 465--475.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Susheel Suresh, Pan Li, Cong Hao, and Jennifer Neville. 2021. Adversarial Graph Augmentation to Improve Graph Contrastive Learning. CoRR abs/2106.05819 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Yonglong Tian, Chen Sun, Ben Poole, Dilip Krishnan, Cordelia Schmid, and Phillip Isola. 2020. What Makes for Good Views for Contrastive Learning?. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Petar Velickovic, William Fedus, William L Hamilton, Pietro Liò, Yoshua Bengio, and R Devon Hjelm. 2019. Deep Graph Infomax. ICLR (Poster) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Yulin Wang, Xuran Pan, Shiji Song, Hong Zhang, Gao Huang, and Cheng Wu. 2019. Implicit semantic data augmentation for deep networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019), 12635--12644.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jason Wei and Kai Zou. 2019. Eda: Easy data augmentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11196 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Jiancan Wu, Xiang Wang, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Liang Chen, Jianxun Lian, and Xing Xie. 2021. Self-supervised graph learning for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 726--735.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Menglin Yang, Ziqiao Meng, and Irwin King. 2020. FeatureNorm: L2 Feature Normalization for Dynamic Graph Embedding. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 731--740.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Menglin Yang, Min Zhou, Jiahong Liu, Defu Lian, and Irwin King. 2022. HRCF: Enhancing collaborative filtering via hyperbolic geometric regularization. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2462--2471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Yuning You, Tianlong Chen, Yongduo Sui, Ting Chen, Zhangyang Wang, and Yang Shen. 2020. Graph contrastive learning with augmentations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 5812--5823.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Junliang Yu, Hongzhi Yin, Xin Xia, Tong Chen, Lizhen Cui, and Nguyen Quoc Viet Hung. 2022. Are Graph Augmentations Necessary? Simple Graph Contrastive Learning for Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08679 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Yifei Zhang and Hao Zhu. 2019. Doc2hash: Learning Discrete Latent variables for Documents Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19--1232Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Yifei Zhang, Hao Zhu, Ziqiao Meng, Piotr Koniusz, and Irwin King. 2022. Graphadaptive Rectified Linear Unit for Graph Neural Networks. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022. ACM, 1331--1339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Hao Zhu and Piotr Koniusz. 2021. REFINE: Random RangE FInder for Network Embedding. In ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Hao Zhu and Piotr Koniusz. 2021. Simple Spectral Graph Convolution. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Hao Zhu, Ke Sun, and Peter Koniusz. 2021. Contrastive Laplacian Eigenmaps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Yanqiao Zhu, Yichen Xu, Feng Yu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2020. Deep graph contrastive representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04131 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Yanqiao Zhu, Yichen Xu, Feng Yu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2021. Graph contrastive learning with adaptive augmentation. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 2069--2080.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. COSTA: Covariance-Preserving Feature Augmentation for Graph Contrastive Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      KDD '22: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
      August 2022
      5033 pages
      ISBN:9781450393850
      DOI:10.1145/3534678

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 August 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader