Augmentation-Free Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by the recent success of self-supervised methods applied on images, self-supervised learning on graph structured data has seen rapid growth especially centered on augmentation-based contrastive methods. However, we argue that without carefully designed augmentation techniques, augmentations on graphs may behave arbitrarily in that the underlying semantics of graphs can drastically change. As a consequence, the performance of existing augmentation-based methods is highly dependent on the choice of augmentation scheme, i.e., augmentation hyperparameters and combinations of augmentation. In this paper, we propose a novel augmentation-free self-supervised learning framework for graphs, named AFGRL. Specifically, we generate an alternative view of a graph by discovering nodes that share the local structural information and the global semantics with the graph. Extensive experiments towards various node-level tasks, i.e., node classification, clustering, and similarity search on various real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of AFGRL. The source code for AFGRL is available at https://github.com/Namkyeong/AFGRL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".