Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

PTCL: Pseudo-Label Temporal Curriculum Learning for Label-Limited Dynamic Graph

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that dynamic node classification can be done from final timestamp labels alone, and that pseudo-labels scheduled by a temporal curriculum outperform full dynamic label supervision.

desk verdict A practical task and a workable pseudo-label method with broad experiments, but the paper overclaims dynamics recovery and has one clear counterexample to its 'consistent' superiority. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17641 v2 pith:TBGIM4SJ submitted 2025-04-24 cs.LG cs.AI

Shengtao Zhang , Haokai Zhang , Shiqi Lou , Zicheng Wang , Zinan Zeng , Yilin Wang , Minnan Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords label-limiteddynamicnodeclassificationpseudo-labelingtemporalcurriculumlearningvariationalEMgraphssemi-supervisedgraphneuralnetworks
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

Dynamic node classification usually assumes labels are known at every timestamp, but real systems often provide only one final label per node. The paper proposes PTCL, which trains a decoder exclusively on final-time labels, uses it to generate pseudo-labels for earlier timestamps, and trains the dynamic backbone on those pseudo-labels with weights that decay exponentially with temporal distance from the final label. Across four datasets and five backbone architectures, PTCL consistently beats the copy-final-labels baseline and, in most configurations, also beats supervision with true per-timestamp dynamic labels, with gains from 0.99% to 11.23% AUC/ACC. The paper also contributes a new academic-collaboration dataset and a unified evaluation framework for this label-limited setting. If correct, the result implies that expensive collection of dynamic labels may be unnecessary: final labels alone can carry the temporal signal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a variational EM loop with a temporal curriculum. In the E-step the decoder $q_\phi$ is fit only to final labels $Y_{F,B}$ while the backbone is frozen, and it then produces pseudo-labels $\hat{Y}_{E,B}$ for all earlier timestamps. In the M-step the backbone is trained on those pseudo-labels plus final labels, with each pseudo-label weighted by $w_{t,\tau}^u = 1$ if the discrete temporal distance $d^t_u$ to the final timestamp is at most the current iteration counter $\tau$, and $\exp(-\gamma(d^t_u-\tau))$ otherwise. Increasing $\tau$ gradually widens the set of timestamps trusted at full weight, implementing the easy-to-hard curriculum in time rather than by confidence or entropy. The same decoder is used at inference to predict final labels for held-out nodes.

What would settle it

Hide the true dynamic labels on a dataset that has them, train PTCL using only final labels, and measure the accuracy of its pseudo-labels at each earlier timestamp against the hidden ground truth. The claim predicts accuracy decreasing with temporal distance from the final label; observing flat accuracy, or accuracy no better than the copy-final-labels baseline at any earlier timestamp, would falsify the temporal curriculum mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that label-limited dynamic node classification, where only final timestamp labels are observed, can be solved better than full dynamic supervision by explicitly modeling label evolution through pseudo-labels. The architecture separates a time-aware backbone from a decoder trained only on final labels; the decoder then labels every earlier timestamp, and the backbone is trained on those pseudo-labels inside a variational EM loop. A temporal curriculum assigns full weight to pseudo-labels within $\tau$ steps of the final timestamp and exponentially decaying weight $\exp(-\gamma(d^t_u-\tau))$ otherwise, with $\tau$ increasing each EM iteration, so training moves from easy near-final pseudo-labels to harder earlier ones. Empirically, PTCL improves nearly all tested backbones on Wikipedia, Reddit, Dsub, and the new CoOAG dataset, outperforming both the copy-final-labels baseline and dynamic-label-supervised training by margins up to 11.23%, and models retrained from scratch on PTCL's pseudo-labels beat models trained on the original dynamic labels. The paper interprets this as evidence that its pseudo-labels capture latent node dynamics better than the available dynamic labels do.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes a decoder trained only on each node's final label can reliably guess what that node's label was at earlier times; if those guesses are no better than copying the final label, the pseudo-label loop has nothing to learn.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dynamic node classifiers can be trained from final labels alone without sacrificing performance and often improving on full dynamic label supervision.
  • The curriculum and EM wrapper generalize across at least five dynamic backbone architectures, so the method can be layered onto existing temporal graph encoders.
  • PTCL's pseudo-labels are not just a training crutch: retraining a model from scratch on them outperforms training on true dynamic labels, suggesting the recovered trajectories are more consistent than the annotated ones.
  • The new dataset and unified evaluation protocol give the label-limited setting a standard benchmark for future methods.
  • Because only final labels are needed, the approach applies where per-timestamp annotation is infeasible, such as delayed fraud labels and long-horizon research-interest shifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension the paper leaves implicit: if the temporal proximity principle is correct, pseudo-label accuracy should decline monotonically with temporal distance from the final label; measuring that curve on hidden dynamic labels could replace the hand-set $\gamma$ with a data-driven schedule.
  • The discrete-rank distance $d^t_u$ discards actual inter-event time gaps; using real time differences might sharpen the curriculum on irregularly sampled graphs, where two events of equal rank can be decades apart in academia but days apart in finance.
  • The successful backward-in-time transfer suggests the same EM-over-pseudo-labels idea might be adapted to early classification, where only early labels are known and later states must be anticipated.
  • For datasets where labels flip abruptly at the final timestamp, as the paper observes on Wikipedia negatives, the exponential schedule may need a different warm-up or a penalty for confident-but-wrong final-flip predictions; this is a natural stress test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies label-limited dynamic node classification, where only node labels at the final timestamp are available and historical labels are unobserved. It proposes PTCL, which separates a dynamic-graph backbone from a decoder: the decoder is trained on final labels (Eq. 7), generates pseudo-labels for earlier timestamps, and the backbone is trained on final labels plus temporally weighted pseudo-labels through an EM-style loop. A temporal curriculum assigns larger weights to timestamps closer to the final label and gradually includes earlier timestamps over iterations. The paper also introduces a new academic collaboration dataset CoOAG and a code framework FLiD. Experiments compare PTCL against CFT, DLS, NPL, PTCL-2D, and SEM across five backbones and four datasets.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, the paper addresses a practical and understudied setting (only final labels for dynamic node classification) and provides a reusable framework and dataset. Strengths include evaluation across five different backbone architectures and four datasets, the public code release, and a plausible pseudo-label/curriculum mechanism. However, the central claim that pseudo-labels capture true node dynamics is not directly validated, and one headline empirical claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1. The contribution is therefore promising but needs additional evidence and corrected claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3 / Table 2 / App. B.1.2-B.1.3] The paper's central claim is that pseudo-labels 'better capture latent evolutionary patterns' than the true dynamic labels (Section 5.3.1). The evidence offered is Table 2, which retrains models from scratch on pseudo-labels and compares final-label AUC with DLS. That protocol rewards any training signal correlated with the final label and cannot distinguish accurate historical pseudo-labels from predictions biased toward the final label; the CFT baseline, which copies final labels to all timestamps, would also be favored by this criterion. Since Wikipedia and Reddit contain the true dynamic labels Y_E,B, the authors can directly score the pseudo-labels against these labels. Please report per-timestamp accuracy/consistency of the pseudo-labels against Y_E,B (and, for completeness, against the CFT copy), rather than only through the indirect PLS-vs-DLS comparison.
  2. [Section 5.2.1 / Table 1] The statement that 'PTCL consistently outperforms the CFT and DLS baselines with significant improvements (ranging from a minimum of 0.99% to a maximum of 11.23% in AUC/ACC)' is not supported by Table 1. For TGN on Reddit, Ours reaches 84.32 ± 2.07 while CFT reaches 89.69 ± 2.07, a 5.37-point deficit; several other entries have overlapping standard deviations. Please qualify the claim, provide per-dataset/backbone win/loss counts, and run significance tests before asserting consistent superiority.
  3. [Section 4.1.3 / Eqs. (6)-(7)] Setting alpha = 0 removes the pseudo-label term from the decoder's objective, so the decoder is trained only on final labels and does not minimize the variational objective over Y_E,B given in Eq. (1). The implemented E-step is therefore not the EM update described; at best it is a self-training heuristic in which a final-label classifier is used to generate historical pseudo-labels. Please either provide a corrected derivation that covers the implemented objective, or explicitly present PTCL as a self-training method rather than a variational EM method.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption 'A present of a financial system' should read 'A depiction of a financial system'.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The phrase 'the discrete temporal distance between of timestamp' contains a grammar error and should be rewritten.
  3. [Table 2] Table 2 reports no standard deviations or significance tests; please add them or state that the values are point estimates.
  4. [Section E.2 / Table 7] The hyperparameters beta and gamma are tuned per dataset and backbone; please add a sensitivity analysis or state clearly that the method requires dataset-specific tuning.
  5. [General formatting] The manuscript still contains template placeholder headers such as 'Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Trovato et al.' and should be reformatted before submission.
  6. [Section 5.3.2] Please provide a quantitative comparison of pseudo-label consistency against the true dynamic labels, rather than only the observation that true negative labels have zero consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PTCL's EM/pseudo-label loop is a standard self-training objective and all headline evaluations are on held-out final labels.

full rationale

PTCL's derivation chain is not circular. The E-step trains the decoder on the final-label objective only (Eq. 7), and the M-step optimizes the backbone on a weighted combination of final labels and decoder-generated pseudo-labels (Eqs. 8-11). This is a standard variational-EM/self-training procedure derived from an ELBO over the unobserved dynamic labels Y_E,B (Eq. 1), not a restatement of the training input. The temporal curriculum weights in Eq. 9 are a hand-designed function of the discrete temporal distance d_t^u and the iteration counter tau; they are not fitted to the test labels, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The method invokes no load-bearing self-citation: the variational EM references (Dempster et al., Neal & Hinton, GMNN, GLEM) are external prior work, and the paper does not rely on any 'uniqueness theorem' from the present authors to force its design. Evaluation is performed on held-out final labels (Y_F,A) that are not used in the pseudo-label generation or backbone training, so the central performance claim is not true by construction. The lack of direct validation of pseudo-labels against the available true dynamic labels Y_E,B weakens the interpretive claim that pseudo-labels 'better capture latent evolutionary patterns' (Sec. 5.3.1), but that is an evidence gap rather than a circular step: nothing in the paper's equations makes that claim equivalent to its inputs. Similarly, the Table 1 inconsistency for TGN on Reddit (Ours 84.32 vs CFT 89.69) is an empirical/correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The method relies on standard variational approximations and a domain assumption about label evolution. The free parameters (beta, gamma, alpha) are tuned per dataset and backbone, which adds flexibility but also means the reported improvements are partly due to per-dataset tuning. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • beta (M-step balance weight) = Varies per dataset/backbone (e.g., 0.9, 0.1, 0.5; see Table 7)
    Controls the balance between final labels and pseudo-labels in the backbone loss (Eq. 11). Tuned per dataset and backbone on validation, not fixed by a principled rule.
  • gamma (curriculum decay rate) = Varies per dataset/backbone (e.g., 0.8, 0.05, 1.3; see Table 7)
    Controls the exponential decay of pseudo-label weights with temporal distance (Eq. 9). Tuned per dataset and backbone.
  • alpha (E-step balance weight) = 0
    Weight between pseudo-labels and final labels in the decoder objective (Eq. 6). Set to 0 because it empirically gave the best performance (Section 5.2.2).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Mean-field factorization of the variational posterior
    Equation (2) assumes q_phi(Y_E,B | G) factorizes across nodes and timestamps, a standard approximation in variational inference.
  • domain assumption Wake-sleep approximation for the E-step
    Section 4.1.3 replaces the true posterior with the decoder's own predictions (Eq. 5), following GLEM. This is an approximation that is not rigorously justified.
  • domain assumption Temporal proximity principle: labels closer to the final timestamp are more predictable and more reliable as pseudo-labels
    Motivates the entire Temporal Curriculum Learning (Section 4.2.1). Assumes gradual label evolution and monotonic reliability, which may fail for abrupt class changes.
  • standard math Pseudo-likelihood approximation for the M-step
    Equation (8) uses the pseudo-likelihood of Besag (1975), a standard approximation for graphical models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PTCL: Pseudo-Label Temporal Curriculum Learning for Label-Limited Dynamic Graph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBGIM4SJ

@misc{pith2026250417641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PTCL: Pseudo-Label Temporal Curriculum Learning for Label-Limited Dynamic Graph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBGIM4SJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17641}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic node classification is critical for modeling evolving systems like financial transactions and academic collaborations. In such systems, dynamically capturing node information changes is critical for dynamic node classification, which usually requires all labels at every timestamp. However, it is difficult to collect all dynamic labels in real-world scenarios due to high annotation costs and label uncertainty (e.g., ambiguous or delayed labels in fraud detection). In contrast, final timestamp labels are easier to obtain as they rely on complete temporal patterns and are usually maintained as a unique label for each user in many open platforms, without tracking the history data. To bridge this gap, we propose PTCL(Pseudo-label Temporal Curriculum Learning), a pioneering method addressing label-limited dynamic node classification where only final labels are available. PTCL introduces: (1) a temporal decoupling architecture separating the backbone (learning time-aware representations) and decoder (strictly aligned with final labels), which generate pseudo-labels, and (2) a Temporal Curriculum Learning strategy that prioritizes pseudo-labels closer to the final timestamp by assigning them higher weights using an exponentially decaying function. We contribute a new academic dataset (CoOAG), capturing long-range research interest in dynamic graph. Experiments across real-world scenarios demonstrate PTCL's consistent superiority over other methods adapted to this task. Beyond methodology, we propose a unified framework FLiD (Framework for Label-Limited Dynamic Node Classification), consisting of a complete preparation workflow, training pipeline, and evaluation standards, and supporting various models and datasets. The code can be found at https://github.com/3205914485/FLiD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A present of a financial system. The graph rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed method. PTCL consists of a Variational EM process with a dynamic graph backbone and a decoder. During the warmup phase, the dynamic graph backbone is trained on a link prediction task, where the dynamic graph structure serves as the target. After warmup, in each M-step, the backbone receives final timestamp labels, pseudo-labels, and the dynamic graph structure as input, while the decoder is… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of different baselines and PTCL. "B" stands for backbone, and "D" stands for decoder. shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of pseudo-labels consistency. 5.3.1 Pseudo-label Supervision Study. To analyze the effectiveness of our pseudo-labels, we conduct the following experiment: We train models from scratch using our generated pseudo-labels (from our trained model) as full supervi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence curves for 5 backbones. Star markers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Qwen2 Technical Report

    2024. Qwen2 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Yoshua Bengio, Jérôme Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Jason Weston. 2009. Curriculum learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning . https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:873046

    2009

  3. [3]

    Julian Besag. 1975. Statistical Analysis of Non-Lattice Data. The Statistician 24 (1975), 179–195. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:116757950

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    Smriti Bhagat, Graham Cormode, and S Muthukrishnan. 2011. Node classification in social networks. Social network data analytics (2011), 115–148

    2011

  5. [5]

    Michael M Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Yann LeCun, Arthur Szlam, and Pierre Van- dergheynst. 2017. Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34, 4 (2017), 18–42

    2017

  6. [6]

    Paola Cascante-Bonilla, Fuwen Tan, Yanjun Qi, and Vicente Ordonez. 2020. Cur- riculum Labeling: Revisiting Pseudo-Labeling for Semi-Supervised Learning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:228096598

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Olivier Chapelle, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Zien. 2006. Introduction to semi-supervised learning. (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Olivier Chapelle and Alexander Zien. 2005. Semi-Supervised Classification by Low Density Separation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14283441

    work page 2005

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Weilin Cong, Si Zhang, Jian Kang, Baichuan Yuan, Hao Wu, Xin Zhou, Hang- hang Tong, and Mehrdad Mahdavi. 2023. Do we really need complicated model architectures for temporal networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11636 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dempster, Nan M

    Arthur P. Dempster, Nan M. Laird, and Donald B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum likeli- hood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4193919

    1977

  3. [11]

    Jennifer G Dy and Carla E Brodley. 2004. Feature selection for unsupervised learning. Journal of machine learning research 5, Aug (2004), 845–889

    2004

  4. [12]

    Yucai Fan, Yuhang Yao, and Carlee Joe-Wong. 2021. Gcn-se: Attention as ex- plainability for node classification in dynamic graphs. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 1060–1065

    2021

  5. [13]

    Kaituo Feng, Changsheng Li, Xiaolu Zhang, and Jun Zhou. 2023. Towards open temporal graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15015 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Shangbin Feng, Zhaoxuan Tan, Herun Wan, Ningnan Wang, Zilong Chen, Binchi Zhang, Qinghua Zheng, Wenqian Zhang, Zhenyu Lei, Shujie Yang, et al. 2022. Twibot-22: Towards graph-based twitter bot detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 35254–35269

    2022

  7. [15]

    Matthias Fey and Jan E. Lenssen. 2019. Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric. In ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds

    2019

  8. [16]

    Lise Getoor, Nir Friedman, Daphne Koller, and Ben Taskar. 2001. Learning Proba- bilistic Models of Relational Structure. In International Conference on Machine Learning. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:10551607

    2001

  9. [17]

    Yves Grandvalet and Yoshua Bengio. 2004. Semi-supervised Learning by Entropy Minimization. In Conférence francophone sur l’apprentissage automatique . https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7890982

    2004

  10. [18]

    Xingzhi Guo, Baojian Zhou, and Steven Skiena. 2021. Subset node representation learning over large dynamic graphs. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 516–526

    2021

  11. [19]

    Rodrigues, and Vincent Y

    Haiyun He, Gholamali Aminian, Yuheng Bu, Miguel L. Rodrigues, and Vincent Y. F. Tan. 2022. How Does Pseudo-Labeling Affect the Generalization Error of the Semi-Supervised Gibbs Algorithm?. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. https://api.seman...

    2022

  12. [20]

    wake-sleep

    Geoffrey E. Hinton, Peter Dayan, Brendan J. Frey, and R M Neal. 1995. The "wake-sleep" algorithm for unsupervised neural networks. Science 268 5214 (1995), 1158–61. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:871473

    1995

  13. [21]

    Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean

    Geoffrey E. Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean. 2015. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. ArXiv abs/1503.02531 (2015). https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7200347

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Petter Holme and Jari Saramäki. 2012. Temporal networks. Physics reports 519, 3 (2012), 97–125

    2012

  15. [23]

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Hongyu Ren, Maho Nakata, Yuxiao Dong, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. Ogb-lsc: A large-scale challenge for machine learning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.09430 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Xuanwen Huang, Yang Yang, Yang Wang, Chunping Wang, Zhisheng Zhang, Jiarong Xu, Lei Chen, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2022. Dgraph: A large-scale financial dataset for graph anomaly detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 22765–22777

    2022

  17. [25]

    Tao Jia, Dashun Wang, and Boleslaw K Szymanski. 2017. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 4 (2017), 0078

    2017

  18. [26]

    Patrick Kage, Jay C Rothenberger, Pavlos Andreadis, and Dimitrios I Diochnos

  19. [27]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Opti- mization. CoRR abs/1412.6980 (2014). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 6628106

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Srijan Kumar, Xikun Zhang, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. Predicting dynamic em- bedding trajectory in temporal interaction networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 1269–1278

    2019

  22. [30]

    Wojciech Kwedlo. 2015. A new random approach for initialization of the multiple restart EM algorithm for Gaussian model-based clustering. Pattern Analysis and Applications 18 (2015), 757–770

    2015

  23. [31]

    Semi-Supervised Learning. 2006. Semi-supervised learning. CSZ2006. html 5 (2006), 2

    2006

  24. [32]

    Dong-Hyun Lee et al . 2013. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi- supervised learning method for deep neural networks. In Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML , Vol. 3. Atlanta, 896

    2013

  25. [33]

    Jianfeng Li and Dexiang Yang. 2023. Research on Financial Fraud Detection Models Integrating Multiple Relational Graphs. Systems 11, 11 (2023), 539

    2023

  26. [34]

    Michelle M Li, Kexin Huang, and Marinka Zitnik. 2022. Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering 6, 12 (2022), 1353–1369

    2022

  27. [35]

    Qimai Li, Zhichao Han, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2018. Deeper Insights into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11118105

    2018

  28. [36]

    Yayong Li, Jie Yin, and Ling Chen. 2022. Informative pseudo-labeling for graph neural networks with few labels. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 37 (2022), 228–254. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:246063495

    2022

  29. [37]

    Zhun Li, ByungSoo Ko, and Ho-Jin Choi. 2018. Naive semi-supervised deep learning using pseudo-label. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 12 (2018), 1358 – 1368. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:69529604

    2018

  30. [38]

    Takeru Miyato, Shin ichi Maeda, Masanori Koyama, and Shin Ishii. 2017. Vir- tual Adversarial Training: A Regularization Method for Supervised and Semi- Supervised Learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence 41 (2017), 1979–1993. https://api.seman...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Neal and Geoffrey E

    Radford M. Neal and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 1998. A View of the Em Algorithm that Justifies Incremental, Sparse, and other Variants. In Learning in Graphical Models . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17947141

    1998

  32. [40]

    Mark EJ Newman, Duncan J Watts, and Steven H Strogatz. 2002. Random graph models of social networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 99, suppl_1 (2002), 2566–2572

    2002

  33. [41]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing system...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al . 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12 (2011), ...

    2011

  35. [43]

    Hongbin Pei, Yuheng Xiong, Pinghui Wang, Jing Tao, Jialun Liu, Huiqi Deng, Jie Ma, and Xiaohong Guan. 2024. Memory Disagreement: A Pseudo-Labeling Measure from Training Dynamics for Semi-supervised Graph Learning. Proceed- ings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 (2024). https:/...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Meng Qin and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2023. Temporal link prediction: A unified frame- work, taxonomy, and review. Comput. Surveys 56, 4 (2023), 1–40

    2023

  37. [45]

    Meng Qu. 2024. Towards combining deep learning and statistical relational learning for reasoning on graphs . Ph.D. Thesis. Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. Advisor(s) Jian Tang. http://hdl.handle.net/1866/32584

    2024

  38. [46]

    Meng Qu, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. 2019. GMNN: Graph Markov Neural Net- works. ArXiv abs/1905.06214 (2019). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 155093091

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yu Rong, Wenbing Huang, Tingyang Xu, and Junzhou Huang. 2019. Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10903 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Emanuele Rossi, Ben Chamberlain, Fabrizio Frasca, Davide Eynard, Federico Monti, and Michael Bronstein. 2020. Temporal graph networks for deep learning on dynamic graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10637 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Aravind Sankar, Yanhong Wu, Liang Gou, Wei Zhang, and Hao Yang. 2020. Dysat: Deep neural representation learning on dynamic graphs via self-attention networks. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on web search and data mining. 519–527

    2020

  42. [50]

    Oleksandr Shchur, Maximilian Mumme, Aleksandar Bojchevski, and Stephan Günnemann. 2019. Pitfalls of Graph Neural Network Evaluation . doi:10.48550/ arXiv.1811.05868 arXiv:1811.05868 [cs]

    2019 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Arnab Sinha, Zhihong Shen, Yang Song, Hao Ma, Darrin Eide, Bo-June (Paul) Hsu, and Kuansan Wang. 2015. An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, 2015-05-18) (WWW ’...

    2015

  44. [52]

    Hwanjun Song, Minseok Kim, and Jae-Gil Lee. 2019. SELFIE: Refurbishing Un- clean Samples for Robust Deep Learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:174800904

    2019

  45. [53]

    Petru Soviany, Radu Tudor Ionescu, Paolo Rota, and N. Sebe. 2021. Curriculum Learning: A Survey. International Journal of Computer Vision 130 (2021), 1526 –

    2021

  46. [54]

    Ke Sun, Zhanxing Zhu, and Zhouchen Lin. 2019. Multi-Stage Self-Supervised Learning for Graph Convolutional Networks. ArXiv abs/1902.11038 (2019). https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:67855919

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. 2008. Arnet- Miner: Extraction and Mining of Academic Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (New York, NY, USA, 2008-08-24) (KDD...

    2008

  48. [56]

    Jesper E Van Engelen and Holger H Hoos. 2020. A survey on semi-supervised learning. Machine learning 109, 2 (2020), 373–440

    2020

  49. [57]

    Lu Wang, Xiaofu Chang, Shuang Li, Yunfei Chu, Hui Li, Wei Zhang, Xiaofeng He, Le Song, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. TCL: Transformer-based Dynamic Graph Modelling via Contrastive Learning.ArXiv abs/2105.07944 (2021). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:234741805

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Xin Wang, Yudong Chen, and Wenwu Zhu. 2021. A Survey on Curriculum Learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44 (2021), 4555–4576. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:232362223

    2021

  51. [59]

    Shunxin Xiao, Shiping Wang, Yuanfei Dai, and Wenzhong Guo. 2022. Graph neural networks in node classification: survey and evaluation. Machine Vision and Applications 33, 1 (2022), 4

    2022

  52. [60]

    Hovy, Minh-Thang Luong, and Quoc V

    Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard H. Hovy, Minh-Thang Luong, and Quoc V. Le

  53. [61]

    Da Xu, Chuanwei Ruan, Evren Korpeoglu, Sushant Kumar, and Kannan Achan

  54. [62]

    Mengde Xu, Zheng Zhang, Han Hu, Jianfeng Wang, Lijuan Wang, Fangyun Wei, Xiang Bai, and Zicheng Liu. 2021. End-to-end semi-supervised object detection with soft teacher. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 3060–3069

    2021

  55. [63]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Me...

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Xiangli Yang, Zixing Song, Irwin King, and Zenglin Xu. 2022. A survey on deep semi-supervised learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35, 9 (2022), 8934–8954

    2022

  57. [65]

    Rex Ying, Ruining He, Kaifeng Chen, Pong Eksombatchai, William L Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Graph convolutional neural networks for web-scale recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 974–983

    2018

  58. [66]

    Le Yu, Leilei Sun, Bowen Du, and Weifeng Lv. 2023. Towards better dynamic graph learning: New architecture and unified library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 67686–67700

    2023

  59. [67]

    Fanjin Zhang, Xiao Liu, Jie Tang, Yuxiao Dong, Peiran Yao, Jie Zhang, Xiaotao Gu, Yan Wang, Evgeny Kharlamov, Bin Shao, Rui Li, and Kuansan Wang. 2023. OAG: Linking Entities Across Large-Scale Heterogeneous Knowledge Graphs. 35, 9 (2023), 9225–9239. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2022.3222168

    2023

  60. [68]

    Fanjin Zhang, Xiao Liu, Jie Tang, Yuxiao Dong, Peiran Yao, Jie Zhang, Xiaotao Gu, Yan Wang, Bin Shao, Rui Li, and Kuansan Wang. 2019. OAG: Toward Linking Large-scale Heterogeneous Entity Graphs. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discove...

    2019

  61. [69]

    Jianan Zhao, Meng Qu, Chaozhuo Li, Hao Yan, Qian Liu, Rui Li, Xing Xie, and Jian Tang. 2022. Learning on Large-scale Text-attributed Graphs via Variational Infer- ence. ArXiv abs/2210.14709 (2022). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 253117079

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hongkuan Zhou, Da Zheng, Israt Nisa, Vasileios Ioannidis, Xiang Song, and George Karypis. 2022. Tgl: A general framework for temporal gnn training on billion-scale graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14883 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Tianyi Zhou, Shengjie Wang, and Jeff Bilmes. 2020. Time-consistent self- supervision for semi-supervised learning. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 11523–11533

    2020

  64. [72]

    Xiaojin Jerry Zhu. 2005. Semi-supervised learning literature survey. (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    [ computer vision (0.53377) ] [ ↩→ image filter (0.5337) ]

    Marinka Zitnik, Monica Agrawal, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Modeling polyphar- macy side effects with graph convolutional networks.Bioinformatics 34, 13 (2018), i457–i466. PTCL: Pseudo-Label Temporal Curriculum Learning for Label-Limited Dynamic Graph Conference acronym ’XX, June...

    2018

  66. [1565]

    https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:231709290

  67. [2019]

    ArXiv abs/1904.12848 (2019)

    Unsupervised Data Augmentation. ArXiv abs/1904.12848 (2019). https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:139102880

    2019 arXiv

  68. [2020]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07962 (2020)

    Inductive representation learning on temporal graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07962 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  69. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07221 (2024)

    A review of pseudo-labeling for computer vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07221 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.