CPDG: A Contrastive Pre-Training Method for Dynamic Graph Neural Networks

Yuan-Qi Bei, Haonan Xu, Sheng Zhou, Huixuan Chi, Mengdi Zhang, Zhao Li, Jiajun Bu

Main figure for CPDG: A Contrastive Pre-Training Method for Dynamic Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Dynamic graph data mining has gained popularity in recent years due to the rich information contained in dynamic graphs and their widespread use in the real world. Despite the advances in dynamic graph neural networks (DGNNs), the rich information and diverse downstream tasks have posed significant difficulties for the practical application of DGNNs in industrial scenarios. To this end, in this paper, we propose to address them by pre-training and present the ontrastive re-Training Method for ynamic raph Neural Networks (CPDG). CPDG tackles the challenges of pre-training for DGNNs, including generalization capability and long-short term modeling capability, through a flexible structural-temporal subgraph sampler along with structural-temporal contrastive pre-training schemes. Extensive experiments conducted on both large-scale research and industrial dynamic graph datasets show that CPDG outperforms existing methods in dynamic graph pre-training for various downstream tasks under three transfer settings.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

Reddit

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUC; the dataset default is F1. Values below use AUC only.

Sorted by AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUC ↑Paper
1
SPLASH
0.7358 ±0.0028
2
Backbone (TGAT)
0.6822 ±0.0052
3
PINT
0.6731 ±0.0020
6
CPDG
0.6551 ±0.0118
This paper
10
DyRep
actual #10 vs paper #14 4 places worse
0.6291 ±0.0240
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #14 4 places worse
paper 0.5614 ±0.0281
paper 0.5614 ±0.0281 Δ at pub 0.0677
11
JODIE
actual #11 vs paper #15 4 places worse
0.6183 ±0.0270
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #15 4 places worse
paper 0.5385 ±0.0303
paper 0.5385 ±0.0303 Δ at pub 0.0798
13
TGN
actual #13 vs paper #15 2 places worse
0.5926 ±0.0041
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #15 2 places worse
paper 0.5552 ±0.0106
17
SelfRGNN
0.5363 ±0.0051
This paper
19
DDGCL
0.5205 ±0.0207
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere