mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Back to All-Entity Ranking: Sampler-Dependent Evaluation in Continuous-Time Dynamic Graphs

arXiv 2607.27861 ↗First posted 30 Jul 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Next-destination prediction in continuous-time dynamic graphs (CTDGs) commonly ranks an observed interaction against sampled negative destinations. The resulting score is conditional on both the negative distribution and the number of candidates chosen by the researcher. We show that a non-uniform negative distribution changes the Bayes-optimal ranking, while even a finite candidate set drawn uniformly can destabilize model rankings and measured module effects. Time-varying source-destination history membership and model operations that use this information directly transmit the sampler's influence to the evaluation score. We examine this mechanism using a factorial evaluation of repeated and new positives against seen and unseen negatives, a minimal scorer based solely on pair-history membership, and controlled representation interventions. Across six models on LastFM, MOOC, Reddit, and Wikipedia, at least one model pair changes relative order between the expected Uniform-20 metric and the full catalog on three of the four datasets. The measured effect of the same module also changes in magnitude and direction with the candidate-set size and training objective. These results establish that model-superiority and ablation conclusions from sampled-negative benchmarks are conditional on the stated candidate configuration. All-entity ranking evaluates every destination in a fixed catalog, eliminating negative-selection freedom and sampling variation while retaining the original CTDG scorer. We therefore recommend all-entity ranking as the primary evidence for architecture comparisons on CTDG benchmarks with an enumerable, fixed destination catalog.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2026.

Builds on

15 of 20 references.

References · 15

  1. 2020Temporal Graph Networks for Deep Learning on Dynamic Graphscited by 530
  2. 2019Predicting Dynamic Embedding Trajectory in Temporal Interaction Networkscited by 448
  3. 2023Towards Better Dynamic Graph Learning: New Architecture and Unified Librarycited by 157
  4. 2023Do We Really Need Complicated Model Architectures For Temporal Networks?cited by 143
  5. 2023Temporal Graph Benchmark for Machine Learning on Temporal Graphscited by 138
  6. 2022Towards Better Evaluation for Dynamic Link Predictioncited by 122
  7. 2022Neighborhood-aware Scalable Temporal Network Representation Learningcited by 54
  8. 2021A Case Study on Sampling Strategies for Evaluating Neural Sequential Item Recommendation Modelscited by 25
  9. 2024Improving Temporal Link Prediction via Temporal Walk Matrix Projectioncited by 21
  10. 2024Efficient Neural Common Neighbor for Temporal Graph Link Predictioncited by 18
  11. 2024Repeat-Aware Neighbor Sampling for Dynamic Graph Learningcited by 11
  12. 2025Future Link Prediction Without Memory or Aggregationcited by 5
3 more
  1. 2024Towards Ideal Temporal Graph Neural Networks: Evaluations and Conclusions after 10,000 GPU Hourscited by 2
  2. 2025TAMI: Taming Heterogeneity in Temporal Interactions for Temporal Graph Link Predictioncited by 2
  3. 2023New Perspectives on the Evaluation of Link Prediction Algorithms for Dynamic Graphscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.