Cited by 16Advanced Graph Neural NetworksGraph Theory and AlgorithmsRecommender Systems and Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TGB 2.0: A Benchmark for Learning on Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Heterogeneous Graphs

Open access

Abstract

Multi-relational temporal graphs are powerful tools for modeling real-world data, capturing the evolving and interconnected nature of entities over time. Recently, many novel models are proposed for ML on such graphs intensifying the need for robust evaluation and standardized benchmark datasets. However, the availability of such resources remains scarce and evaluation faces added complexity due to reproducibility issues in experimental protocols. To address these challenges, we introduce Temporal Graph Benchmark 2.0 (TGB 2.0), a novel benchmarking framework tailored for evaluating methods for predicting future links on Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Temporal Heterogeneous Graphs with a focus on large-scale datasets, extending the Temporal Graph Benchmark. TGB 2.0 facilitates comprehensive evaluations by presenting eight novel datasets spanning five domains with up to 53 million edges. TGB 2.0 datasets are significantly larger than existing datasets in terms of number of nodes, edges, or timestamps. In addition, TGB 2.0 provides a reproducible and realistic evaluation pipeline for multi-relational temporal graphs. Through extensive experimentation, we observe that 1) leveraging edge-type information is crucial to obtain high performance, 2) simple heuristic baselines are often competitive with more complex methods, 3) most methods fail to run on our largest datasets, highlighting the need for research on more scalable methods.

Overview

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

Crossref · 10.52202/079017-4450

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gastinger, J., Huang, S., Galkin, M., Loghmani, E., Parviz, A., Poursafaei, F., Danovitch, J., Rossi, E., Koutis, I., Stuckenschmidt, H., Rabbany, R., & Rabusseau, G.
Venue
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37
Published
2024
Pages
140199-140229
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415800403
Cited by
16
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 2
FWCI
3.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Graph Theory and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
temporal knowledge graphs, heterogeneous graphs, benchmark, knowledge graph learning, temporal reasoning

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