Leveraging Temporal Graph Networks Using Module Decoupling
Or Feldman, Chaim Baskin

TL;DR
This paper introduces LDTGN, a lightweight, decoupled model for dynamic graph learning that enables frequent updates with high throughput, outperforming previous methods especially in rapid-update scenarios.
Contribution
The paper proposes a novel decoupling strategy for temporal graph networks, resulting in an efficient model that balances frequent updates and high throughput.
Findings
LDTGN achieves state-of-the-art results on dynamic graph benchmarks.
Our method outperforms previous approaches by over 20% in rapid-update scenarios.
LDTGN maintains high throughput while enabling frequent model updates.
Abstract
Modern approaches for learning on dynamic graphs have adopted the use of batches instead of applying updates one by one. The use of batches allows these techniques to become helpful in streaming scenarios where updates to graphs are received at extreme speeds. Using batches, however, forces the models to update infrequently, which results in the degradation of their performance. In this work, we suggest a decoupling strategy that enables the models to update frequently while using batches. By decoupling the core modules of temporal graph networks and implementing them using a minimal number of learnable parameters, we have developed the Lightweight Decoupled Temporal Graph Network (LDTGN), an exceptionally efficient model for learning on dynamic graphs. LDTG was validated on various dynamic graph benchmarks, providing comparable or state-of-the-art results with significantly higher…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 Conference Withdrawn Submission
S1. Designing GNN models for continuous-time dynamic graphs with high streaming rates is an interesting direction. S2. The idea of decoupling memory and prediction modules is simple and intuitive.
W1. I am not fully convinced by the motivation of his problem. Firstly, the author has not clearly articulated why the issue of missing updates is significant and why existing methods struggle to address it. Secondly, LDTGN is a parameterized version of the baseline EdgeBank, and this enhancement utilizes the modular design approach of TGN. However, the intuition behind proposing this solution has not been elaborately explained. W2. The features of nodes and edges have not been considered, and
1. It is attractive and intuitive to modify the Temporal Graph Network with a decoupling strategy. Decoupling enables the batches for the memory and the prediction module to be different, which can increase the frequency of the updates while keeping throughput. 2. The paper is well-organized with a logical flow.
1. The problem has not yet been well motivated. The authors point out the problem of missing updates but do not tell what consequences the problem brings to the embedding models. Give a running example in the Introduction section would help understand the problem better. It is unclear to the audience how significant the problem is and why existing approaches fail to solve it properly. The authors mentioned some related work in the paper but did not point out their limitations. Therefore, it is v
A lot of experiments were conducted comparing with many alternative models.
The writing is substandard. For example, the model description on Page 6 is very unclear. For example, what are the subscripts 2 in Eq(10) and 1 in Eq(11)? Section 5.1 refers to Table 2 which is 1 full page later and Fig. 6 which is on Page 17! Page 8 refers to Fig.1b which is on Page 2... Also, the model is very simple and incremental to TGN and EdgeBank. On Page 8, it is claimed that "The other models cannot apply back- propagation at inference time" so you are comparing your online trained
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Neural Networks · Recommender Systems and Techniques · Graph Theory and Algorithms
