PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Boosting Temporal Graph Learning From Global and Local Perspectives

Fengyi Wang, Guanghui Zhu, Chunfeng Yuan, Yihua Huang

general MLtemporal graphsgraph neural networksattention mechanism
6.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
5.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
5.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We present that modeling from global and local viewpoints is indispensable for temporal graph representation learning, and propose the Global and Local Embedding Network(GLEN) to effectively generate node embeddings by considering both perspectives.

Abstract

Extensive research has been dedicated to learning on temporal graphs due to its wide range of applications. Some works intuitively merge GNNs and RNNs to capture structural and temporal information, while recent works propose to aggregate information from neighbor nodes in local subgraphs based on message passing or random walk. These methods produce node embeddings from a global or local perspective and ignore the complementarity between them, thus facing limitations in capturing complex and entangled dynamic patterns when applied to diverse datasets or evaluated by more challenging evaluation protocols. To address the challenges, we propose the Global and Local Embedding Network (GLEN) for effective and efficient temporal graph representation learning. Specifically, GLEN dynamically generates embeddings for graph nodes by considering both global and local perspectives. Then, global and local embeddings are elegantly combined by a cross-perspective fusion module to extract high-order semantic relations in graphs. We evaluate GLEN on multiple real-world datasets and apply several negative sampling strategies. Sufficient experimental results demonstrate that GLEN outperforms other baselines in both link prediction and dynamic node classification tasks.

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 — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 28% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)