Learning temporal attention in dynamic graphs with bilinear interactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reasoning about graphs evolving over time is a challenging concept in many domains, such as bioinformatics, physics, and social networks. We consider a common case in which edges can be short term interactions (e.g., messaging) or long term structural connections (e.g., friendship). In practice, long term edges are often specified by humans. Human-specified edges can be both expensive to produce and suboptimal for the downstream task. To alleviate these issues, we propose a model based on temporal point processes and variational autoencoders that learns to infer temporal attention between nodes by observing node communication. As temporal attention drives between-node feature propagation, using the dynamics of node interactions to learn this key component provides more flexibility while simultaneously avoiding issues associated with human-specified edges. We also propose a bilinear transformation layer for pairs of node features instead of concatenation, typically used in prior work, and demonstrate its superior performance in all cases. In experiments on two datasets in the dynamic link prediction task, our model often outperforms the baseline model that requires a human-specified graph. Moreover, our learned attention is semantically interpretable and infers connections similar to actual graphs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it