PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

GraphPulse: Topological representations for temporal graph property prediction

Kiarash Shamsi, Farimah Poursafaei, Shenyang Huang, Bao Tran Gia Ngo, Baris Coskunuzer, Cuneyt Gurcan Akcora

self/semi-supervised learningTemporal Graph AnalysisTopological Data AnalysisGraph Property PredictionGraph Neural Networks
36.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
28.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
53.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

Abstract

Many real-world networks evolve over time, and predicting the evolution of such networks remains a challenging task. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown empirical success for learning on static graphs, but they lack the ability to effectively learn from nodes and edges with different timestamps. Consequently, the prediction of future properties in temporal graphs remains a relatively under-explored area. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap by introducing a principled framework, named GraphPulse. The framework combines two important techniques for the analysis of temporal graphs within a Newtonian framework. First, we employ the Mapper method, a key tool in topological data analysis, to extract essential clustering information from graph nodes. Next, we harness the sequential modeling capabilities of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) for temporal reasoning regarding the graph's evolution. Through extensive experimentation, we demonstrate that our model enhances the ROC-AUC metric by 10.2\% in comparison to the top-performing state-of-the-art method across various temporal networks. We provide the implementation of GraphPulse at https://github.com/kiarashamsi/GraphPulse.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 36 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 43% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)