Why Does Dropping Edges Usually Outperform Adding Edges in Graph Contrastive Learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph contrastive learning (GCL) has been widely used as an effective self-supervised learning method for graph representation learning. However, how to apply adequate and stable graph augmentation to generating proper views for contrastive learning remains an essential problem. Dropping edges is a primary augmentation in GCL while adding edges is not a common method due to its unstable performance. To our best knowledge, there is no theoretical analysis to study why dropping edges usually outperforms adding edges. To answer this question, we introduce a new metric, namely Error Passing Rate (EPR), to quantify how a graph fits the network. Inspired by the theoretical conclusions and the idea of positive-incentive noise, we propose a novel GCL algorithm, Error-PAssing-based Graph Contrastive Learning (EPAGCL), which uses both edge adding and edge dropping as its augmentations. To be specific, we generate views by adding and dropping edges based on the weights derived from EPR. Extensive experiments on various real-world datasets are conducted to validate the correctness of our theoretical analysis and the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".