Temporal graph models fail to capture global temporal dynamics
Micha{\l} Daniluk, Jacek D\k{a}browski

TL;DR
This paper critically evaluates temporal graph models, revealing their failure to capture global dynamics, and introduces simple yet effective baselines and measures to better understand and improve modeling of datasets with strong temporal changes.
Contribution
It presents a trivial baseline outperforming existing methods, introduces Wasserstein-based measures for global dynamics, and proposes improved negative sampling schemes for temporal graph modeling.
Findings
Simple baseline outperforms complex models on large datasets
Negative sampling can cause model degeneration during training
Proposed measures quantify global temporal dynamics effectively
Abstract
A recently released Temporal Graph Benchmark is analyzed in the context of Dynamic Link Property Prediction. We outline our observations and propose a trivial optimization-free baseline of "recently popular nodes" outperforming other methods on medium and large-size datasets in the Temporal Graph Benchmark. We propose two measures based on Wasserstein distance which can quantify the strength of short-term and long-term global dynamics of datasets. By analyzing our unexpectedly strong baseline, we show how standard negative sampling evaluation can be unsuitable for datasets with strong temporal dynamics. We also show how simple negative-sampling can lead to model degeneration during training, resulting in impossible to rank, fully saturated predictions of temporal graph networks. We propose improved negative sampling schemes for both training and evaluation and prove their usefulness. We…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1) The paper is about an interesting topic, link prediction task on temporal graph benchmark datasets. 2) The authors identify the challenges and limitation of existing models and benchmark datasets and propose measures to characterize the datasets. 3) The authors have included a fair amount of state of the art comparison methods for graph representations (link prediction task).
1) The paper needs more iterations to improve the writing style and the structure. It is not easy to follow. 2) The authors start the paper by introducing with the challenges and limitations of the benchmark dataset and existing models. This specific part need more attention. It is the core of the paper and it is very brief. A better listing of the limitations/challenges is needed. A related work section will help to better list those limitations. The works mentioned for the comparison (but othe
- By using the simple baseline PopTrack, the authors reveal the insufficiency of the conventional methods and metrics for TG models. - The authors propose an alternative metric that better captures the true performance of models. - They also propose a new negative sampling method and a new non-contrastive method. - This paper is clearly written with plain language. Their findings and the proposed new metric enhance the value of the Temporal Graph benchmark and may help accelerate the TG resear
- The proposed non-contrastive EMDE method may be time consuming. - The effectiveness of the proposed negative sampling method is still limited.
S1. The authors have conducted a great amount of experiments regarding dynamic link property prediction on the well-known Temporal Graph Benchmark (TGB). S2. The author provided the code regarding their experiments for review.
**W1. There are no formal statements regarding the problem/task considered in this paper. Some statements are also inconsistent.** For instance, it is unclear that the authors considered (1) which data model (e.g., discrete-time dynamic graph or continuous-time dynamic graph) of dynamic graphs, (2) whether graph attributes (e.g., node and edge attributes) are available, (3) whether the edges are directed or undirected, (4) whether the edges are unweighted or weighted, etc. What is the form
This paper makes an interesting observation that sometimes a trivial model can outperform the state-of-the-art Temporal Graph models on certain datasets.
1. This paper is poorly written and difficult to read. The organization of the sections is very confusing. The reviewer can hardly follow the idea of this paper. 2. The figures in this paper do not seem to provide any useful information. It is hard to tell what figure 1 and figure 2 try to show to the reader and they are not referenced or explained anywhere in the paper. 3. The main claim in this paper, which is the proposed PopTrack method "beat" other TG models, is hardly supported by e
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Neural Networks · Complex Network Analysis Techniques · Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
