PreprintCited by 0Advanced Graph Neural NetworksTopic ModelingSemantic Web and Ontologies

VITA: Versatile Time Representation Learning for Temporal Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graphs

Open access
Un, ChongIn, Lu, Yuhuan, Yang, Tianyue, Yang, Dingqi·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Knowledge graphs (KGs) have become an effective paradigm for managing real-world facts, which are not only complex but also dynamically evolve over time. The temporal validity of facts often serves as a strong clue in downstream link prediction tasks, which predicts a missing element in a fact. Traditional link prediction techniques on temporal KGs either consider a sequence of temporal snapshots of KGs with an ad-hoc defined time interval or expand a temporal fact over its validity period under a predefined time granularity; these approaches not only suffer from the sensitivity of the selection of time interval/granularity, but also face the computational challenges when handling facts with long (even infinite) validity. Although the recent hyper-relational KGs represent the temporal validity of a fact as qualifiers describing the fact, it is still suboptimal due to its ignorance of the infinite validity of some facts and the insufficient information encoded from the qualifiers about the temporal validity. Against this background, we propose VITA, a $\underline{V}$ersatile t$\underline{I}$me represen$\underline{TA}$tion learning method for temporal hyper-relational knowledge graphs. We first propose a versatile time representation that can flexibly accommodate all four types of temporal validity of facts (i.e., since, until, period, time-invariant), and then design VITA to effectively learn the time information in both aspects of time value and timespan to boost the link prediction performance. We conduct a thorough evaluation of VITA compared to a sizable collection of baselines on real-world KG datasets. Results show that VITA outperforms the best-performing baselines in various link prediction tasks (predicting missing entities, relations, time, and other numeric literals) by up to 75.3%. Ablation studies and a case study also support our key design choices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.11803

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Un, C., Lu, Y., Yang, T., & Yang, D.
Affiliations
University of Macau (MO)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417299981
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
Keywords
temporal knowledge graphs, hyper-relational knowledge graphs, link prediction, temporal granularity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review