Coden: Efficient Temporal Graph Neural Networks for Continuous Prediction

Zulun Zhu, Siqiang Luo

Main figure for Coden: Efficient Temporal Graph Neural Networks for Continuous Prediction

Abstract

Temporal Graph Neural Networks (TGNNs) are pivotal in processing dynamic graphs. However, existing TGNNs primarily target one-time predictions for a given temporal span, whereas many practical applications require continuous predictions, that predictions are issued frequently over time. Directly adapting existing TGNNs to continuous-prediction scenarios introduces either significant computational overhead or prediction quality issues especially for large graphs. This paper revisits the challenge of continuous predictions in TGNNs, and introduces Coden, a TGNN model designed for efficient and effective learning on dynamic graphs. Coden innovatively overcomes the key complexity bottleneck in existing TGNNs while preserving comparable predictive accuracy. Moreover, we further provide theoretical analyses that substantiate the effectiveness and efficiency of Coden, and clarify its duality relationship with both RNN-based and attention-based models. Our evaluations across five dynamic datasets show that Coden surpasses existing performance benchmarks in both efficiency and effectiveness, establishing it as a superior solution for continuous prediction in evolving graph environments.

Proposed method: Coden

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #109 95 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #109 95 places worse
paper 0.9295 ±0.0037
paper 0.9295 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0365
58
GCN
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
0.9530 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
paper 0.9330 ±0.0084
paper 0.9330 ±0.0084 Δ at pub 0.0200
81
Coden
0.9417 ±0.0030
This paper
87
SpikeNet
0.9383 ±0.0037
This paper
89
ASTGCN
0.9379 ±0.0081
This paper
90
TGCN
0.9373 ±0.0044
This paper
96
CAWN
0.9353 ±0.0065
This paper
97
TGL+TGN
0.9353 ±0.0033
This paper
99
EvolveGCN
0.9350 ±0.0027
This paper
101
DyGFormer
0.9332 ±0.0062
This paper
106
MPNN
0.9308 ±0.0064
This paper
110
Zebra
0.9294 ±0.0012
This paper
112
Instant
0.9234 ±0.0029
This paper
113
SCARA
actual #113 vs paper #113
0.9229 ±0.0050
actual #113 vs paper #113
paper 0.9229 ±0.0050
paper 0.9229 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.5199

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
0.7910
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
34
Coden
0.6645 ±0.0033
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
68
TGL+TGN
0.6433 ±0.0053
This paper
69
Instant
0.6415 ±0.0035
This paper
72
SCARA
0.6340 ±0.0021
This paper
95
MLP
0.4960 ±0.0030

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HG-SCM
0.9490 ±0.0015
2
SeHGNN
0.9489 ±0.0018
3
AdvSynGNN
0.9486 ±0.0012
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #106 70 places worse
0.8758 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #106 70 places worse
paper 0.7424 ±0.0022
paper 0.7424 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.1334
65
MLP
0.8118 ±0.0020
82
Coden
0.7723 ±0.0027
This paper
83
MPNN
0.7702 ±0.0019
This paper
86
TGL+TGN
0.7691 ±0.0060
This paper
87
DyGFormer
0.7679 ±0.0029
This paper
88
ASTGCN
0.7670 ±0.0019
This paper
91
EvolveGCN
0.7609 ±0.0054
This paper
92
Zebra
0.7597 ±0.0033
This paper
94
DNNTSP
0.7587 ±0.0076
This paper
95
SpikeNet
0.7572 ±0.0071
This paper
96
SCARA
0.7568 ±0.0066
This paper
97
TGCN
0.7565 ±0.0075
This paper
98
CAWN
0.7558 ±0.0067
This paper
100
Instant
0.7522 ±0.0044
This paper
105
GraphSAGE
actual #105 vs paper #105
0.7455 ±0.0061
actual #105 vs paper #105
paper 0.7455 ±0.0061
paper 0.7455 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0645
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published