Cargando…

Graph Clustering with High-Order Contrastive Learning

Graph clustering is a fundamental and challenging task in unsupervised learning. It has achieved great progress due to contrastive learning. However, we find that there are two problems that need to be addressed: (1) The augmentations in most graph contrastive clustering methods are manual, which ca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Wang, Zhu, En, Wang, Siwei, Guo, Xifeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10606795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37895553
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/e25101432
Descripción
Sumario:Graph clustering is a fundamental and challenging task in unsupervised learning. It has achieved great progress due to contrastive learning. However, we find that there are two problems that need to be addressed: (1) The augmentations in most graph contrastive clustering methods are manual, which can result in semantic drift. (2) Contrastive learning is usually implemented on the feature level, ignoring the structure level, which can lead to sub-optimal performance. In this work, we propose a method termed Graph Clustering with High-Order Contrastive Learning (GCHCL) to solve these problems. First, we construct two views by Laplacian smoothing raw features with different normalizations and design a structure alignment loss to force these two views to be mapped into the same space. Second, we build a contrastive similarity matrix with two structure-based similarity matrices and force it to align with an identity matrix. In this way, our designed contrastive learning encompasses a larger neighborhood, enabling our model to learn clustering-friendly embeddings without the need for an extra clustering module. In addition, our model can be trained on a large dataset. Extensive experiments on five datasets validate the effectiveness of our model. For example, compared to the second-best baselines on four small and medium datasets, our model achieved an average improvement of 3% in accuracy. For the largest dataset, our model achieved an accuracy score of 81.92%, whereas the compared baselines encountered out-of-memory issues.