arXiv Machine Learning By Dylan Sandfelder, Mihai Cucuringu, Xiaowen Dong

Temporal Motif Signatures for Temporal Graph Neural Networks

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2606. 01176v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Real temporal interaction streams carry predictive structure in short-horizon motif patterns -- repetition, reciprocity, star diversity, triadic flow -- that vanilla temporal graph neural networks (TGNNs) often fail to expose to their edge scorers.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 19

HyPE-GT: where Graph Transformers meet Hyperbolic Positional Encodings

HyPE-GT introduces a framework that generates learnable hyperbolic positional encodings for Graph Transformers, enabling the capture of complex hierarchical relationships in graph-structured data. Unlike traditional Euclidean encodings, HyPE’s hyperbolic encodings can be selected to suit specific downstream tasks and help mitigate oversmoothing in deep Graph Neural Networks. Experiments on molecular benchmarks and large-scale Open Graph Benchmark datasets demonstrate improved performance, while additional tests on Coauthor and Copurchase networks confirm HyPE’s effectiveness in controlling oversmoothing.

By Kushal Bose, Swagatam Das
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 17

What Do Temporal Graph Learning Models Learn?

arXiv:2510. 09416v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Learning on temporal graphs has become a central topic in graph representation learning, with numerous benchmarks indicating the strong performance of state-of-the-art models.

By Abigail J. Hayes, Tobias Schumacher, Markus Strohmaier
arXiv AI
Sep 10

TTGBench: Benchmarking Topological Evolution and Semantic Drift in Text-attributed Temporal Graphs

TTGBench is a new benchmark for temporal graph learning that evaluates both structural evolution and semantic drift in text‑attributed graphs. It includes six real‑world, text‑rich datasets with dual volatility and supports multi‑class and multi‑label temporal node classification, addressing gaps left by existing benchmarks. A comprehensive evaluation of 17 state‑of‑the‑art methods shows a clear divide: TGNNs excel at structural prediction but struggle with semantic tracking, while LLM‑based models perform better on semantic tasks but lag in structural prediction.

By Longfei Ma, Zemin Liu, Fei Wu