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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27861 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27861/

## 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 (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Temporal Graph Networks for Deep Learning on Dynamic Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.10637/) (2020)
- [Predicting Dynamic Embedding Trajectory in Temporal Interaction Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.01207/) (2019)
- [Towards Better Dynamic Graph Learning: New Architecture and Unified Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13047/) (2023)
- [Do We Really Need Complicated Model Architectures For Temporal Networks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.11636/) (2023)
- [Temporal Graph Benchmark for Machine Learning on Temporal Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01026/) (2023)
- [Towards Better Evaluation for Dynamic Link Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.10128/) (2022)
- [Neighborhood-aware Scalable Temporal Network Representation Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.01084/) (2022)
- [A Case Study on Sampling Strategies for Evaluating Neural Sequential Item Recommendation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13045/) (2021)
- [Improving Temporal Link Prediction via Temporal Walk Matrix Projection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04013/) (2024)
- [Efficient Neural Common Neighbor for Temporal Graph Link Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07926/) (2024)
- [Repeat-Aware Neighbor Sampling for Dynamic Graph Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17473/) (2024)
- [Future Link Prediction Without Memory or Aggregation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19408/) (2025)
- [Towards Ideal Temporal Graph Neural Networks: Evaluations and Conclusions after 10,000 GPU Hours](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.20256/) (2024)
- [TAMI: Taming Heterogeneity in Temporal Interactions for Temporal Graph Link Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.23577/) (2025)
- [New Perspectives on the Evaluation of Link Prediction Algorithms for Dynamic Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.18486/) (2023)

## 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.