REVIEW 2 cited by
LocalGCL: Local-aware Contrastive Learning for Graphs
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Graph representation learning (GRL) makes considerable progress recently, which encodes graphs with topological structures into low-dimensional embeddings. Meanwhile, the time-consuming and costly process of annotating graph labels manually prompts the growth of self-supervised learning (SSL) techniques. As a dominant approach of SSL, Contrastive learning (CL) learns discriminative representations by differentiating between positive and negative samples. However, when applied to graph data, it overemphasizes global patterns while neglecting local structures. To tackle the above issue, we propose \underline{Local}-aware \underline{G}raph \underline{C}ontrastive \underline{L}earning (\textbf{\methnametrim}), a self-supervised learning framework that supplementarily captures local graph information with masking-based modeling compared with vanilla contrastive learning. Extensive experiments validate the superiority of \methname against state-of-the-art methods, demonstrating its promise as a comprehensive graph representation learner.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Learning Robust Heterogeneous Graph Representations via Contrastive-Reconstruction under Sparse Semantics
HetCRF combines masked autoencoding and contrastive learning in a dual-channel framework with two positive-sample augmentation strategies, improving heterogeneous graph node classification under sparse features.
-
Evaluating Loss Functions for Graph Neural Networks: Towards Pretraining and Generalization
A benchmark of 7 GNNs and 30 losses on 3 graphs claims hybrid losses and GIN rank best on average, but a central summary table contradicts the paper's full results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.