arXiv:2608. 07158v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Temporal graph learning has become essential for analyzing real-world systems whose interactions continuously evolve over time, including financial transaction networks, communication systems, and online social platforms.
By Poupak Azad, Cuneyt Gurcan Akcora, Kiarash Shamsi
The article surveys Dynamic Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning (DHGRL), a field that tackles the challenges of modeling evolving, multi‑type networks. It introduces a unified definition covering both discrete‑time and continuous‑time DHGs, and proposes an algorithm‑centric taxonomy that groups methods into embedding‑based, GNN‑based, and Transformer‑based approaches, highlighting their biases toward temporal granularity. The survey also reviews key applications, datasets, benchmarks, and outlines future research directions.
By Huan Liu, Pengfei Jiao, Jie Yin, Hongjiang Chen, Zhidong Zhao
arXiv:2605.06462v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Progress in graph learning is hindered by benchmark practices that conflate the contributions of node features and graph structure, making it hard...
By Richard von Moos, Mathieu Alain, Bastian Rieck
The paper explores how information propagates in Deep Graph Networks (DGNs) for both static and dynamic graphs, treating DGNs as dynamical systems. It presents new architectures that better preserve long‑term node dependencies and learn complex spatio‑temporal patterns from irregular, sparsely sampled dynamic graphs. The work combines theoretical analysis with empirical results to demonstrate the effectiveness of these designs.
By Alessio Gravina
arXiv:2607. 07716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Temporal graphs are ubiquitous in real-world applications and Temporal Graph Networks (TGNs) have achieved superior predictive accuracy.
By Yazheng Liu, Xi Zhang, Sihong Xie, Hui Xiong
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