Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

A Deep Probabilistic Framework for Continuous Time Dynamic Graph Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The central claim is that temporal graphs can be generated event-by-event by sampling a factored joint probability over source, destination, time, and edge features, with no static-graph or snapshot representation.

desk verdict A novel direct factorization for CTDG generation, but the inductive-generation claim is not supported by the described mechanism; worth a serious revision, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15582 v1 pith:NUFDPKFB submitted 2024-12-20 cs.LG

Ryien Hosseini , Filippo Simini , Venkatram Vishwanath , Henry Hoffmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords continuous-timedynamicgraphsgraphgenerationtemporalinteractionmodelingprobabilisticfactorizationautoregressivenetworkslinkpredictionedgefeature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces DG-Gen, a generative framework for continuous-time dynamic graphs that treats each temporal interaction as a joint probability over its four attributes: source node, destination node, timestamp, and edge-feature vector. The joint probability is factored as $p(\mathrm{src}, \mathrm{dst}, t, e) = p(\mathrm{src})\,p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})\,p(t,e\mid \mathrm{dst},\mathrm{src})$, and a deep probabilistic decoder estimates the parameters of each factor from temporal node embeddings. The central claim is that sampling these factors autoregressively produces synthetic dynamic graphs that are statistically similar to the source graph without duplicating its edges, and that the same learned probabilities can be read directly as a link-prediction model. On five datasets the authors report that DG-Gen beats the only prior inductive CTDG generator on graph-fidelity metrics and matches or beats dedicated link-prediction models on four of the five datasets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the factored interaction probability $p(\mathrm{src}, \mathrm{dst}, t, e) = p(\mathrm{src})\,p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})\,p(t,e\mid \mathrm{dst},\mathrm{src})$, which decomposes a temporal edge into source selection, source-conditioned destination selection, and event content (time and edge features). Each factor is parameterized by a deep decoder over temporal node embeddings: the Reshape module scores a node as a source, the Product module scores a source-destination pair, the Merge module combines two node embeddings into a vector $h_0$, and the Time+MSG module, initialized with $h_0$, outputs the parameters of the inter-event-time distribution and the edge-feature distributions. The decoder is trained by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of observed interactions. At inference, sampling from the three factors in sequence and updating node memories after each batch produces the synthetic graph.

What would settle it

After training on a graph with node set $V_{\mathrm{train}}$, initialize the encoder with a held-out node's raw features or no memory, and ask the model for $p(\mathrm{src})$ and $p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})$ involving that node; if the architecture cannot issue such a query, or if a generated graph of the same length as the test partition never contains any node outside $V_{\mathrm{train}}$, then the inductive-node-generation claim is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that a continuous-time dynamic graph can be generated event-by-event without ever constructing a static graph or discrete snapshots. DG-Gen writes the probability of a temporal edge as $p(\mathrm{src}, \mathrm{dst}, t, e) = p(\mathrm{src})\,p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})\,p(t,e\mid \mathrm{dst},\mathrm{src})$, where $p(\mathrm{src})$ is a Categorical distribution over possible source nodes, $p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})$ is a Categorical distribution over destinations conditioned on the source, and $p(t,e\mid \mathrm{dst},\mathrm{src})$ combines an Exponential inter-event-time model with Categorical or Gaussian-mixture models for edge features. A temporal encoder supplies node memories and embeddings, and the decoder's modules map those embeddings into the distribution parameters. Inference starts from an empty graph and samples sources, then destinations, then event times and features, updating memories after each generated batch. The same factorization yields link prediction for free as $p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})$, and the reported experiments show it matching or surpassing dedicated discriminative baselines while also generating edge features of arbitrary length.

Load-bearing premise

The method's inductive-generation claim rests on the assumption that a node not present during training can receive a meaningful embedding and probability under $p(\mathrm{src})$ and $p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})$, but no node-arrival or embedding-initialization mechanism for unseen nodes is specified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, synthetic continuous-time graphs can be generated event-by-event without constructing an adjacency matrix, so generation can scale to graphs with hundreds of thousands or millions of timestamps.
  • The same trained model performs link prediction without fine-tuning, since $p(\mathrm{dst}\mid \mathrm{src})$ is exactly the conditional probability that a given source connects to a given destination at the current temporal state.
  • Edge features of arbitrary length, both categorical and numerical, can be generated from learned conditional distributions, a capability the paper says previous CTDG generators lacked.
  • Generated graphs are original in the edge-overlap sense used by the baseline literature, so they can support data augmentation and obfuscation without re-releasing source edges.
  • On the five datasets studied, the fidelity results place DG-Gen ahead of the only prior inductive CTDG baseline on most topology metrics, with the largest gains in closeness centrality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implicit consequence the authors do not develop is that the factorization separates generation into three channels: who acts, whom they act on, and what the event contains; each factor could be reweighted or conditioned independently, for example to simulate counterfactual graphs with the same topology but different timing or feature distributions.
  • A concrete extension would pair the decoder with a different temporal encoder, since the decoder consumes only embeddings; the framework predicts that encoder quality transfers directly to generation fidelity, which could be tested by swapping in another encoder.
  • The inductive claim is only as strong as the node set: because $p(\mathrm{src})$ is defined over nodes with learned embeddings and generation starts with empty memory, the paper does not specify how a truly new node enters the set, so extending the method to genuinely unseen nodes would require a node-arrival model or an embedding-initialization rule.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DG-Gen, a continuous-time dynamic graph (CTDG) generative framework that factorizes each temporal interaction as p(src, dst, t, e) = p(src)p(dst|src)p(t, e|dst, src). The encoder is a Temporal Graph Network, and the decoder uses learned modules to parameterize a categorical distribution over source nodes, a categorical distribution over destination nodes given the source, an exponential distribution for inter-event times, and categorical or Gaussian-mixture distributions for edge features. The authors claim that this factorization enables scalable, inductive, and largely assumption-free autoregressive generation of CTDGs, and they evaluate the method on five datasets for graph generation and link prediction, comparing against TIGGER-I and several discriminative baselines.

Significance. If the inductive claim were established, DG-Gen would be a conceptually clean departure from snapshot- or random-walk-based CTDG generators and, to my knowledge, the first CTDG generator that produces arbitrary-length edge features. The paper also deserves credit for releasing source code, including ablations of the memory and noise components, and for evaluating on five datasets. However, the paper's central claim—inductive generation of graphs with unseen nodes—is not supported by the model as described, and the temporal model rests on an untested exponential-assumption that is in tension with the 'largely assumption free' framing. These are load-bearing issues for the paper's main contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and §3.4] The inductive generation claim is not supported by the described model. In §3.2, p(src) and p(dst|src) are Categorical distributions over 'possible source nodes' and 'possible destination nodes', with logits built from node embeddings; these distributions have finite support determined by the set of node IDs present in the embedding table. Section 3.4 states that generation starts with an empty graph and that all nodes have empty memory, but no node-arrival or node-creation mechanism is specified that would introduce new node IDs, initialize their embeddings, and expand the categorical support. Therefore the generative loop cannot sample an unseen node: at the first step there are no nodes in the support of p(src), and at later steps only nodes whose IDs are already in the support can appear. The experiments in §4 generate graphs with the same number of interactions as the test partition but never report whether any generated node ID is outside the training node set. As written, the method is a transductive edge-sequence generator, not an inductive node-generating model, and the headline contribution in §1 and Table 1 is unsubstantiated.
  2. [§3.2, p(t|dst,src)] The paper imposes, without empirical justification, that inter-event times follow an Exponential distribution conditioned on source and destination embeddings. This is a strong parametric assumption and directly contradicts the abstract's and §1's claim that the approach is 'largely assumption free'. Since the generated timestamps are one of the three components of the generated event tuple, the exponential assumption is load-bearing for temporal fidelity, yet no goodness-of-fit test, comparison with alternative inter-event distributions (e.g., Weibull, log-normal, or a nonparametric model), or residual analysis is reported. The absence of any evaluation of generated inter-event time statistics, as opposed to snapshot-based topological statistics in Table 2, makes it impossible to assess how well the temporal dynamics are reproduced.
  3. [§4, link prediction comparison] The link prediction results in Figure 3 are used to support the claim of 'significantly advances link prediction tasks', but the comparison may not be fully controlled. For all datasets except Bikeshare, baseline numbers are imported from Poursafaei et al. 2022 rather than re-run, and the manuscript does not state that the exact data splits, negative sampling strategy, and evaluation protocol are identical to the ones used for DG-Gen. In addition, the paper does not describe how p(dst|src) is applied when the candidate destination set includes nodes unseen during training, which is relevant because the claimed inductive link prediction setting depends on the model being able to score such destinations. These omissions weaken the secondary contribution, even though the primary issue is the generative claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The phrase 'largely assumption free' is too strong given the explicit Exponential distribution for inter-event times described in §3.2; the wording should be qualified.
  2. [§2.3] There is a typo: 'continously' should be 'continuously'.
  3. [Table 1] The table header formatting is broken ('Capability DymondTagGenTIGGERTIGGER-IDG-Gen'), making the header difficult to read; also, the column alignment should be fixed.
  4. [Table 2] The caption says 'Best model is bolded', but in the manuscript text the bold formatting is not visible; please ensure the final PDF displays bolding clearly.
  5. [§3.3] The training description says a random subset of nodes is sampled when computing source and destination scores, but it is not stated whether the softmax normalization is restricted to that subset or applied over the full node set; this affects the interpretation of the reported negative log-likelihood.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the joint-factorization decoder is trained by negative log-likelihood and evaluated on held-out link prediction and distributional fidelity; the unsupported inductive-generation claim is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard maximum-likelihood autoregressive model. The joint p(src, dst, t, e) = p(src)p(dst|src)p(t, e|dst, src) is parameterized by the decoder and trained to minimize the negative log-likelihood of observed temporal interactions (Section 3.3). Link prediction is then the same learned conditional p(dst|src) applied to held-out edges (Section 3.4), which is a direct application of the trained model rather than a separately fitted quantity; this is the normal supervised evaluation protocol and does not reduce to the training objective. Graph-generation quality is measured by distributional similarity (Jensen-Shannon distances, topology metrics), which is the standard way to evaluate generative models against the training data distribution, not a circular prediction. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the encoder (TGN, Rossi et al. 2020) and baseline (TIGGER-I, Gupta et al. 2022) are external prior work, not the authors' own, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior papers. The inductive-generation claim in Sections 1 and 3.4 is not supported by the described mechanism: p(src) is a Categorical distribution over the available node set, and the generation loop starts from an empty graph without a node-arrival process, so it is unclear how genuinely new node IDs are created. However, this is an unsupported modeling assumption or correctness gap, not a circular argument: no equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of a fitted input or reduces the claimed inductive output to the training data by construction. Therefore no circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All trainable network weights are excluded because they are learned parameters, not free parameters imposed by the derivation. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen hyperparameters. The axioms are the structural assumptions the method depends on, including the fixed node set and exponential inter-event time, which are load-bearing and largely untested.

free parameters (3)
  • GMM component count m = not stated in main text
    The number of Gaussian mixture components for continuous edge features is a hyperparameter chosen by hand (Section 3.2).
  • Stabilizing noise scale = 0.1 to 0.001
    Gaussian noise added to numerical edge features during training to stabilize convergence (Section 3.3).
  • Node sampling size = ~2x batch size
    Random subset of nodes used when computing source/destination scores to accelerate training (Section 3.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The node set is fixed; p(src) and p(dst|src) are categorical distributions over all possible source/destination nodes.
    Section 3.2; this limits the generator to the observed node vocabulary and contradicts the inductive generation claim for new nodes.
  • ad hoc to paper Inter-event times follow an Exponential distribution conditioned on source/destination embeddings.
    Section 3.2; no goodness-of-fit or temporal statistics are reported, so this is an unvalidated modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The TGN encoder's temporal embeddings are sufficient statistics for the generative distributions.
    Section 3.1-3.2; all conditional distributions are functions of these embeddings.
  • domain assumption The graph can be generated starting from empty memory for all nodes.
    Section 3.4; this initialization may not reflect the true temporal graph evolution and is not evaluated against a warm-start alternative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Deep Probabilistic Framework for Continuous Time Dynamic Graph Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUFDPKFB

@misc{pith2026241215582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Deep Probabilistic Framework for Continuous Time Dynamic Graph Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUFDPKFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15582}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in graph representation learning have shifted attention towards dynamic graphs, which exhibit evolving topologies and features over time. The increased use of such graphs creates a paramount need for generative models suitable for applications such as data augmentation, obfuscation, and anomaly detection. However, there are few generative techniques that handle continuously changing temporal graph data; existing work largely relies on augmenting static graphs with additional temporal information to model dynamic interactions between nodes. In this work, we propose a fundamentally different approach: We instead directly model interactions as a joint probability of an edge forming between two nodes at a given time. This allows us to autoregressively generate new synthetic dynamic graphs in a largely assumption free, scalable, and inductive manner. We formalize this approach as DG-Gen, a generative framework for continuous time dynamic graphs, and demonstrate its effectiveness over five datasets. Our experiments demonstrate that DG-Gen not only generates higher fidelity graphs compared to traditional methods but also significantly advances link prediction tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of DG-Gen’s architecture and internal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panels: Histograms of one randomly selected edge feature distribution per dataset of the real data (blue) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average Precision for DG-Gen and baselines on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arjovsky, M.; Chintala, S.; and Bottou, L. 2017. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International conference on machine learning, 214--223. PMLR

    2017

  2. [2]

    Ballard, D. H. 1987. Modular learning in neural networks. In Aaai, volume 647, 279--284

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    D.; Mendon c a, M

    Barros, C. D.; Mendon c a, M. R.; Vieira, A. B.; and Ziviani, A. 2021. A survey on embedding dynamic graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(1): 1--37

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Bastas, N.; Semertzidis, T.; Axenopoulos, A.; and Daras, P. 2019. evolve2vec: Learning network representations using temporal unfolding. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling, 447--458. Springer

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Bavelas, A. 1950. Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. The journal of the acoustical society of America, 22(6): 725--730

    work page 1950

  6. [6]

    u gner, D.; and G \

    Bojchevski, A.; Shchur, O.; Z \"u gner, D.; and G \"u nnemann, S. 2018. Netgan: Generating graphs via random walks. In International conference on machine learning, 610--619. PMLR

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    S.; and Obara, B

    Bonner, S.; Brennan, J.; Kureshi, I.; Theodoropoulos, G.; McGough, A. S.; and Obara, B. 2018. Temporal graph offset reconstruction: Towards temporally robust graph representation learning. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 3737--3746. IEEE

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Chen, B.; Sun, L.; and Han, X. 2018. Sequence-to-action: End-to-end semantic graph generation for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00773

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Cho, K.; van Merrienboer, B.; Gulcehre, C.; Bougares, F.; Schwenk, H.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; and Bengio, Y. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM, 63(11): 139--144

    2020

  3. [11]

    Grover, A.; and Leskovec, J. 2016. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 855--864

    2016

  4. [12]

    Guo, X.; and Zhao, L. 2020. A systematic survey on deep generative models for graph generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.06686

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gupta, S.; Manchanda, S.; Bedathur, S.; and Ranu, S. 2022. TIGGER: Scalable Generative Modelling for Temporal Interaction Graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 6819--6828

    2022

  6. [14]

    Hamilton, W.; Ying, Z.; and Leskovec, J. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  7. [15]

    Kazemi, S. M. 2022. Dynamic graph neural networks. Graph Neural Networks: Foundations, Frontiers, and Applications, 323--349

    2022

  8. [16]

    M.; Goel, R.; Jain, K.; Kobyzev, I.; Sethi, A.; Forsyth, P.; and Poupart, P

    Kazemi, S. M.; Goel, R.; Jain, K.; Kobyzev, I.; Sethi, A.; Forsyth, P.; and Poupart, P. 2020. Representation learning for dynamic graphs: A survey. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(70): 1--73

    2020

  9. [17]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kumar, S.; Zhang, X.; and Leskovec, J. 2019. Predicting dynamic embedding trajectory in temporal interaction networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 1269--1278

    2019

  11. [19]

    Kunegis, J. 2013. Konect: the koblenz network collection. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web, 1343--1350

    2013

  12. [20]

    Lei, K.; Qin, M.; Bai, B.; Zhang, G.; and Yang, M. 2019. GCN-GAN: A non-linear temporal link prediction model for weighted dynamic networks. In IEEE INFOCOM 2019-IEEE conference on computer communications, 388--396. IEEE

    2019

  13. [21]

    Lin, J. 1991. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 37(1): 145--151

    1991

  14. [22]

    Ma, Y.; Guo, Z.; Ren, Z.; Tang, J.; and Yin, D. 2020. Streaming graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 719--728

    2020

  15. [23]

    Mahdavi, S.; Khoshraftar, S.; and An, A. 2020. Dynamic joint variational graph autoencoders. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: International Workshops of ECML PKDD 2019, W \"u rzburg, Germany, September 16--20, 2019, Proceedings, Part I , 385--401. Springer

    2020

  16. [24]

    H.; Lee, J

    Nguyen, G. H.; Lee, J. B.; Rossi, R. A.; Ahmed, N. K.; Koh, E.; and Kim, S. 2018 a . Continuous-time dynamic network embeddings. In Companion proceedings of the the web conference 2018, 969--976

    2018

  17. [25]

    H.; Lee, J

    Nguyen, G. H.; Lee, J. B.; Rossi, R. A.; Ahmed, N. K.; Koh, E.; and Kim, S. 2018 b . Dynamic network embeddings: From random walks to temporal random walks. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 1085--1092. IEEE

    2018

  18. [26]

    Oussidi, A.; and Elhassouny, A. 2018. Deep generative models: Survey. In 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV), 1--8. IEEE

    2018

  19. [27]

    Perozzi, B.; Al-Rfou, R.; and Skiena, S. 2014. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 701--710

    2014

  20. [28]

    Popova, M.; Shvets, M.; Oliva, J.; and Isayev, O. 2019. MolecularRNN: Generating realistic molecular graphs with optimized properties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13372

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Poursafaei, F.; Huang, S.; Pelrine, K.; and Rabbany, R. 2022. Towards better evaluation for dynamic link prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 32928--32941

    2022

  22. [30]

    Rossi, E.; Chamberlain, B.; Frasca, F.; Eynard, D.; Monti, F.; and Bronstein, M. 2020. Temporal graph networks for deep learning on dynamic graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10637

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    E.; Hinton, G

    Rumelhart, D. E.; Hinton, G. E.; and Williams, R. J. 1985. Learning internal representations by error propagation. Technical report, California Univ San Diego La Jolla Inst for Cognitive Science

    1985

  24. [32]

    Shi, Y.; Huang, Z.; Feng, S.; Zhong, H.; Wang, W.; and Sun, Y. 2020. Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03509

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Trivedi, R.; Dai, H.; Wang, Y.; and Song, L. 2017. Know-evolve: Deep temporal reasoning for dynamic knowledge graphs. In international conference on machine learning, 3462--3471. PMLR

    2017

  26. [34]

    Trivedi, R.; Farajtabar, M.; Biswal, P.; and Zha, H. 2019. Dyrep: Learning representations over dynamic graphs. In International conference on learning representations

    2019

  27. [35]

    Wang, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, F.; Xie, X.; and Guo, M. 2018 a . Graphgan: Graph representation learning with generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32

    2018

  28. [36]

    Wang, Q.; Ji, Y.; Hao, Y.; and Cao, J. 2020. GRL: Knowledge graph completion with GAN-based reinforcement learning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 209: 106421

    2020

  29. [37]

    Wang, Y.; Chang, Y.-Y.; Liu, Y.; Leskovec, J.; and Li, P. 2021. Inductive Representation Learning in Temporal Networks via Causal Anonymous Walks. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  30. [38]

    Wang, Y.; Che, W.; Guo, J.; and Liu, T. 2018 b . A neural transition-based approach for semantic dependency graph parsing. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32

    2018

  31. [39]

    Xiong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Fu, H.; Wang, W.; Zhu, Y.; and Yu, P. S. 2019. Dyngraphgan: Dynamic graph embedding via generative adversarial networks. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications: 24th International Conference, DASFAA 2019, Chiang Mai, Thailand, April 22--25, 2019, P...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Xu, D.; Ruan, C.; Korpeoglu, E.; Kumar, S.; and Achan, K. 2020. Inductive representation learning on temporal graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07962

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    You, J.; Du, T.; and Leskovec, J. 2022. ROLAND: Graph Learning Framework for Dynamic Graphs. In Zhang, A.; and Rangwala, H., eds., KDD '22: The 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, August 14 - 18, 2022 , 2358--2366. ACM

    2022

  34. [42]

    You, J.; Ying, R.; Ren, X.; Hamilton, W.; and Leskovec, J. 2018. Graphrnn: Generating realistic graphs with deep auto-regressive models. In International conference on machine learning, 5708--5717. PMLR

    2018

  35. [43]

    Zeno, G.; La Fond, T.; and Neville, J. 2021. DYMOND: DYnamic MOtif-NoDes Network Generative Model. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, 718--729

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zhang, L. 2019. STGGAN: Spatial-temporal graph generation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, 608--609

    2019

  37. [45]

    Zhang, L.; Zhao, L.; Qin, S.; Pfoser, D.; and Ling, C. 2021 a . TG-GAN: Continuous-time temporal graph deep generative models with time-validity constraints. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, 2104--2116

    2021

  38. [46]

    Zhang, W.; Zhang, L.; Pfoser, D.; and Zhao, L. 2021 b . Disentangled dynamic graph deep generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), 738--746. SIAM

    2021

  39. [47]

    Zhou, D.; Zheng, L.; Han, J.; and He, J. 2020. A data-driven graph generative model for temporal interaction networks. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 401--411

    2020

  40. [48]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  41. [49]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.