PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Deep graph kernel point processes

Zheng Dong, Matthew Repasky, Xiuyuan Cheng, Yao Xie

general MLPoint processes over graphsDeep kernelGraph neural networks
71.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
68.20100
Mimo
band ≈ ±24 pct pts (from σ = 0.47)
67.10100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Point process models are widely used for continuous asynchronous event data, where each data point includes time and additional information called ``marks'', which can be locations, nodes, or event types. In this paper, we present a novel point process model for discrete event data over graphs, where the event interaction occurs within a latent graph structure. Our model builds upon the classic influence kernel-based formulation by Hawkes in the original self-exciting point processes work to capture the influence of historical events on future events' occurrence. The key idea is to represent the influence kernel by Graph Neural Networks (GNN) to capture the underlying graph structure while harvesting the strong representation power of GNN. Compared with prior works that focus on directly modeling the conditional intensity function using neural networks, our kernel presentation herds the repeated event influence patterns more effectively by combining statistical and deep models, achieving better model estimation/learning efficiency and superior predictive performance. Our work significantly extends the existing deep spatio-temporal kernel for point process data, which is inapplicable to our setting due to the fundamental difference in the nature of the observation space being Euclidean rather than a graph. We present comprehensive experiments on synthetic and real-world data to show the superior performance of the proposed approach against the state-of-the-art in predicting future events and uncovering the relational structure among data.

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.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)