mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Does GCL Need a Large Number of Negative Samples? Enhancing Graph Contrastive Learning with Effective and Efficient Negative Sampling

arXiv 2503.17908 ↗First posted 23 Mar 2025cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) aims to self-supervised learn low-dimensional graph representations, primarily through instance discrimination, which involves manually mining positive and negative pairs from graphs, increasing the similarity of positive pairs while decreasing negative pairs. Drawing from the success of Contrastive Learning (CL) in other domains, a consensus has been reached that the effectiveness of GCLs depends on a large number of negative pairs. As a result, despite the significant computational overhead, GCLs typically leverage as many negative node pairs as possible to improve model performance. However, given that nodes within a graph are interconnected, we argue that nodes cannot be treated as independent instances. Therefore, we challenge this consensus: Does employing more negative nodes lead to a more effective GCL model? To answer this, we explore the role of negative nodes in the commonly used InfoNCE loss for GCL and observe that: (1) Counterintuitively, a large number of negative nodes can actually hinder the model's ability to distinguish nodes with different semantics. (2) A smaller number of high-quality and non-topologically coupled negative nodes are sufficient to enhance the discriminability of representations. Based on these findings, we propose a new method called GCL with Effective and Efficient Negative samples, E2Neg, which learns discriminative representations using only a very small set of representative negative samples. E2Neg significantly reduces computational overhead and speeds up model training. We demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of E2Neg across multiple datasets compared to other GCL methods.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2025.

Builds on

18 of 24 references.

References · 18

  1. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
  2. 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,361
  3. 2017Graph Attention Networkscited by 8,923
  4. 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,777
  5. 2019Momentum Contrast for Unsupervised Visual Representation Learningcited by 7,513
  6. 2017Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphscited by 6,320
  7. 2019Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometriccited by 2,434
  8. 2016node2vec: Scalable Feature Learning for Networkscited by 1,918
  9. 2014DeepWalk: Online Learning of Social Representationscited by 1,547
  10. 2018Deep Graph Infomaxcited by 1,106
  11. 2018Pitfalls of Graph Neural Network Evaluationcited by 1,007
  12. 2016Revisiting Semi-Supervised Learning with Graph Embeddingscited by 976
6 more
  1. 2019Graph Neural Networks for Social Recommendationcited by 714
  2. 2020Contrastive Multi-View Representation Learning on Graphscited by 652
  3. 2020Deep Graph Contrastive Representation Learningcited by 539
  4. 2020Graph Contrastive Learning with Adaptive Augmentationcited by 519
  5. 2020Wiki-CS: A Wikipedia-Based Benchmark for Graph Neural Networkscited by 260
  6. 2021A Survey of Community Detection Approaches: From Statistical Modeling to Deep Learningcited by 55

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

8 papers.