Are Large Language Models Good Temporal Graph Learners?

Shenyang Huang, Alipanah Parviz, Emma Kondrup, Zachary Yang, Zifeng Ding, Michael Bronstein, Reihaneh Rabbany, Guillaume Rabusseau

Main figure for Are Large Language Models Good Temporal Graph Learners?

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently driven significant advancements in Natural Language Processing and various other applications. While a broad range of literature has explored the graph-reasoning capabilities of LLMs, including their use of predictors on graphs, the application of LLMs to dynamic graphs -- real world evolving networks -- remains relatively unexplored. Recent work studies synthetic temporal graphs generated by random graph models, but applying LLMs to real-world temporal graphs remains an open question. To address this gap, we introduce Temporal Graph Talker (TGTalker), a novel temporal graph learning framework designed for LLMs. TGTalker utilizes the recency bias in temporal graphs to extract relevant structural information, converted to natural language for LLMs, while leveraging temporal neighbors as additional information for prediction. TGTalker demonstrates competitive link prediction capabilities compared to existing Temporal Graph Neural Network (TGNN) models. Across five real-world networks, TGTalker performs competitively with state-of-the-art temporal graph methods while consistently outperforming popular models such as TGN and HTGN. Furthermore, TGTalker generates textual explanations for each prediction, thus opening up exciting new directions in explainability and interpretability for temporal link prediction. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/shenyangHuang/TGTalker.

Proposed method: GraphMixer

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value 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 MRR; the dataset default is F1. Values below use MRR only.

Sorted by MRR. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
TNCN
0.6960 ±0.0200
This paper
2
Qwen3-8B
0.6260
This paper
3
Qwen2.5-7B
0.6170
This paper
4
Llama3-8B
0.6130
This paper
5
Mistral-7B-v0.3
0.6120
This paper
6
Qwen3-1.7B
0.6060
This paper
7
EdgeBank
0.5890
This paper
8
HTGN (UTG)
0.5330 ±0.0070
This paper
9
TGN
0.4990 ±0.0110
This paper
10
GCLSTM (UTG)
0.4670 ±0.0040
This paper
11
GCN (UTG)
0.2420 ±0.0050
This paper
12
GPT-4.1-mini
0.2250
This paper
13
GraphMixer
0.1360 ±0.0780
This paper

OGB

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
InterHT + DigPiece
0.7293 ±0.0018
2
StarGraph + TripleRE'
0.7290
3
TripleRE + StarGraph
0.7201 ±0.0011
4
TNCN
0.7110 ±0.0070
This paper
8
Qwen3-8B
0.6510
This paper
9
Qwen2.5-7B
0.6480
This paper
14
Qwen3-1.7B
0.6070
This paper
16
Mistral-7B-v0.3
0.6040
This paper
17
Llama3-8B
0.6040
This paper
18
EdgeBank
0.6000
This paper
22
TGN
actual #22 vs paper #37 15 places worse
0.5770 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #37 15 places worse
paper 0.3960 ±0.0600
28
HTGN (UTG)
0.4640 ±0.0050
This paper
35
GPT-4.1-mini
0.4250
This paper
38
GCLSTM (UTG)
0.3740 ±0.0100
This paper
41
GCN (UTG)
0.3360 ±0.0090
This paper
45
GraphMixer
0.1180 ±0.0020
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)