Dynamic Graph World Modelling: Learning Future Dynamics from Temporal Context
Authors: Bo Li, Yue Yang, Yujin Huang, Siao Liu, David Lemphers, Sara E Rodriguez Gomez, Luke Borgnolo, Can Wang, Xin Zheng
Organizations: School of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University, Australia · Maincode, Australia · School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia · Future Science and Engineering College, Soochow University, China · School of Computing Technologies, RMIT University, Australia
Dynamic graph learning models how entities and their relations evolve from historical observations to predict future graph states. Existing methods do not fully address dynamic graph world modelling, which requires learning transitions from temporal context to future latent graph states. This is difficult for three reasons: nodes and relations rely on different historical evidence, structural evolution is path-dependent, and future snapshots provide sparse and realization-specific targets. We propose Dynamic Graph World Modelling (DyG-WM), the first framework to jointly predict future node and relation representations from temporal context by answering three questions: what has evolved, how it evolved, and what will evolve next. To capture what has evolved, a historical node-relation context encoder summarizes node-neighborhood trajectories and pair-specific histories. To characterize how it evolved, a node-relation path-signature encoder captures ordered structural changes. To predict what will evolve next, a dual-level joint-embedding objective predicts target-snapshot node and relation representations without reconstructing the raw graph. Experiments on 12 link-prediction and two node-classification datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of DyG-WM across both tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of dynamic graph learning and dynamic graph world modelling. Dynamic graph learning maps historical graphs to task-specific outputs, whereas dynamic graph world modelling predicts future latent state.
Figure 2: Overview of DyG-WM . (a) The historical node-relation context encoder summarizes the trajectories of nodes and their neighborhoods and constructs pair-specific relation contexts from historical snapshots. (b) The node-relation path-signature encoder uses second-order signatures to capture ordered structural changes at both levels. (c) The dual-level joint-embedding predictive objective predicts target-snapshot node and relation representations.
NSS
Datasets
JODIE
DyRep
TGAT
TGN
CAWN
TCL
GraphMixer
DyGFormer
CLDG
MaskDGNN
DVGMAE
DyG-WM
rnd
Wikipedia
96.55 ± 0.19
94.93 ± 0.50
92.66 ± 0.43
98.46 ± 0.05
98.60 ± 0.01
97.51 ± 0.09
97.12 ± 0.06
98.98 ± 0.01
89.50 ± 0.18
86.71 ± 0.53
83.96 ± 0.55
98.94 ± 0.02
Reddit
98.04 ± 0.04
97.69 ± 0.51
97.97 ± 0.02
97.75 ± 0.38
99.10 ± 0.01
97.91 ± 0.04
98.03 ± 0.02
99.09 ± 0.00
96.75 ± 0.01
96.73 ± 0.02
95.72 ± 0.07
99.20 ± 0.01
MOOC
83.16 ± 2.19
79.33 ± 4.02
86.01 ± 0.06
94.19 ± 0.73
82.05 ± 0.28
85.58 ± 0.39
84.98 ± 0.13
89.80 ± 0.23
68.17 ± 1.30
74.97 ± 0.20
71.02 ± 0.89
82.50 ± 0.39
LastFM
70.94 ± 0.72
71.92 ± 0.84
71.54 ± 0.35
62.38 ± 2.16
85.93 ± 0.11
71.10 ± 0.32
73.59 ± 0.11
93.15 ± 0.02
64.49 ± 0.69
65.48 ± 0.66
63.00 ± 0.21
92.61 ± 0.06
Enron
87.29 ± 1.84
85.60 ± 1.98
74.41 ± 0.73
84.87 ± 1.60
90.49 ± 0.04
83.90 ± 0.28
84.56 ± 0.24
93.46 ± 0.14
87.87 ± 0.47
85.82 ± 0.86
74.84 ± 1.19
92.55 ± 0.25
UCI
90.35 ± 0.50
64.90 ± 9.03
82.54 ± 0.41
94.05 ± 0.37
93.93 ± 0.04
89.71 ± 2.88
91.98 ± 0.43
94.59 ± 0.22
86.18 ± 0.30
88.04 ± 0.08
88.31 ± 0.17
94.15 ± 0.17
Table 1: Transductive AUC-ROC for dynamic link prediction with random ( rnd ), historical ( hist ), and inductive ( ind ) negative edge sampling. Bold red and underlined blue emphasize best and 2nd-best results.
Datasets
JODIE
DyRep
TGAT
TGN
CAWN
TCL
GraphMixer
DyGFormer
CLDG
MaskDGNN
DVGMAE
DyG-WM
Wikipedia
94.06 ± 0.23
91.46 ± 0.24
78.29 ± 0.67
97.22 ± 0.07
96.93 ± 0.02
96.74 ± 0.09
95.89 ± 0.06
97.42 ± 0.02
86.63 ± 0.42
84.35 ± 0.20
80.43 ± 1.29
97.52 ± 0.03
Reddit
96.01 ± 0.10
95.25 ± 0.29
67.96 ± 1.62
96.12 ± 0.61
96.48 ± 0.03
95.95 ± 0.09
95.36 ± 0.11
96.56 ± 0.02
94.33 ± 0.08
94.66 ± 0.06
93.26 ± 0.21
97.44 ± 0.10
MOOC
81.86 ± 0.78
79.41 ± 2.36
80.43 ± 0.30
91.44 ± 0.49
82.43 ± 0.28
82.33 ± 0.65
83.09 ± 0.18
87.92 ± 0.29
63.33 ± 0.58
72.03 ± 0.39
66.51 ± 0.95
79.63 ± 0.44
LastFM
81.89 ± 0.69
81.36 ± 1.62
76.83 ± 0.14
62.44 ± 5.05
87.88 ± 0.05
76.36 ± 1.04
80.10 ± 0.16
93.05 ± 0.05
67.08 ± 1.27
66.47 ± 1.02
63.90 ± 0.57
93.50 ± 0.22
Enron
82.81 ± 1.85
74.13 ± 2.31
69.84 ± 0.47
74.17 ± 2.79
87.60 ± 0.25
81.23 ± 0.33
77.88 ± 0.15
90.73 ± 0.10
80.10 ± 1.15
76.05 ± 1.65
62.54 ± 0.60
87.45 ± 0.26
UCI
77.47 ± 1.78
58.26 ± 6.40
77.93 ± 0.49
86.21 ± 2.79
89.65 ± 0.16
79.89 ± 0.98
88.84 ± 0.15
92.03 ± 0.09
75.80 ± 0.37
76.76 ± 0.18
77.16 ± 0.11
92.32 ± 0.13
Table 2: Inductive AUC-ROC for dynamic link prediction in the inductive (new-node) setting with random negative edge sampling. Bold red and underlined blue indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Metric
Dataset
Ratio
TGAT
CAWN
TCL
GraphMixer
DyGFormer
EvolveGCN-H
ROLAND
CLDG
MaskDGNN
DVGMAE
SG-JEPA
DyG-WM
Macro-F1
DBLP
40%
68.54 ± 0.60
64.71 ± 0.92
69.76 ± 1.09
71.69 ± 0.79
67.88 ± 0.72
26.10 ± 11.19
47.14 ± 20.87
60.70 ± 1.34
70.98 ± 0.84
60.36 ± 0.83
73.96 ± 0.59
75.45 ± 0.35
60%
71.60 ± 0.61
66.32 ± 0.60
72.33 ± 0.68
73.80 ± 0.52
69.99 ± 0.62
32.22 ± 19.39
58.32 ± 13.49
59.70 ± 1.95
71.91 ± 0.24
60.36 ± 0.81
75.88 ± 0.36
77.13 ± 0.51
80%
73.12 ± 0.56
67.66 ± 1.11
73.59 ± 0.77
75.41 ± 0.77
71.46 ± 0.80
37.47 ± 9.69
52.91 ± 12.28
61.77 ± 2.20
73.88 ± 1.21
60.38 ± 1.00
77.55 ± 0.33
78.13 ± 0.23
Tmall
40%
47.36 ± 0.78
45.49 ± 0.35
49.12 ± 0.49
49.20 ± 0.94
33.31 ± 6.17
35.80 ± 9.81
41.46 ± 8.38
32.06 ± 1.83
48.35 ± 1.60
36.23 ± 1.02
54.16 ± 0.36
57.37 ± 0.37
60%
49.05 ± 0.26
47.28 ± 0.56
50.10 ± 0.58
51.50 ± 0.75
32.65 ± 2.84
36.13 ± 6.82
40.87 ± 6.29
30.10 ± 1.44
50.83 ± 1.03
35.47 ± 1.19
55.81 ± 0.34
59.17 ± 0.49
80%
49.86 ± 0.44
48.23 ± 0.82
50.56 ± 0.78
52.92 ± 0.41
34.73 ± 2.49
39.41 ± 3.33
40.74 ± 6.82
31.00 ± 1.70
51.39 ± 1.52
35.40 ± 1.30
57.24 ± 0.39
60.52 ± 0.39
Table 3: Node classification on dynamic graphs. Macro-F1 and Micro-F1 (%) on the held-out test nodes, reported as mean ± std over 5 seeds at labelled-node training ratios of 40%, 60%, and 80%. Bold red and underlined blue indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 3: Latent alignment on Can. Parl. with and without the predictive objective.
Settings
Enron
Can. Parl.
LastFM
w/o Historical Context
71.53 ± 3.02
76.08 ± 2.77
75.11 ± 0.52
w/o Path Signature
59.09 ± 5.52
60.31 ± 4.65
70.17 ± 0.87
w/o Predictive Objective
71.69 ± 3.94
75.58 ± 2.11
75.93 ± 1.32
DyG-WM
74.99 ± 1.93
78.19 ± 1.97
77.36 ± 0.73
Table 4: Results (AUC-ROC) of ablations.
Figure 4: AUC-ROC-efficiency trade-off on Reddit and LastFM.
Figure 5: Robustness to noise on Can. Parl. and Wikipedia.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Datasets
Domains
#Nodes
#Links
#N&L Feature
Bipartite
Duration
Unique Steps
Time Granularity
Wikipedia
Social
9,227
157,474
N/A & 172
True
1 month
152,757
Unix timestamps
Reddit
Social
10,984
672,447
N/A & 172
True
1 month
669,065
Unix timestamps
MOOC
Interaction
7,144
411,749
N/A & 4
True
17 months
345,600
Unix timestamps
LastFM
Interaction
1,980
1,293,103
N/A & N/A
True
1 month
1,283,614
Unix timestamps
Enron
Social
184
125,235
N/A & N/A
False
3 years
22,632
Unix timestamps
UCI
Social
1,899
59,835
N/A & N/A
False
196 days
58,911
Unix timestamps
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of the datasets. N/A denotes the absence of node or edge features. #Nodes denotes the number of nodes.
Datasets
#Nodes
#Links
#Classes
#Snapshots
#Features
DBLP
28,085
236,894
10
27
80
Tmall
577,314
4,807,545
5
186
80
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics of the dynamic node classification datasets.
Configuration
Link prediction
Node classification
Hidden dimension
128
128
Message-passing layers
2
2
Window parameter W
4
3
Temporal dimension
32
32
Predictor hidden dimension
256
256
Signature order
2
2
Appendix
Table 7: Default implementation settings for DyG-WM . Dataset-specific overrides are selected using validation data only.
NSS
Datasets
JODIE
DyRep
TGAT
TGN
CAWN
TCL
GraphMixer
DyGFormer
CLDG
MaskDGNN
DVGMAE
DyG-WM
rnd
Wikipedia
96.69 ± 0.21
95.20 ± 0.54
92.68 ± 0.47
98.54 ± 0.05
98.78 ± 0.01
97.93 ± 0.06
97.39 ± 0.05
99.06 ± 0.02
91.55 ± 0.09
88.76 ± 0.43
85.68 ± 0.62
99.10 ± 0.02
Reddit
98.07 ± 0.02
97.71 ± 0.56
98.03 ± 0.02
97.74 ± 0.39
99.18 ± 0.01
98.09 ± 0.04
98.09 ± 0.01
99.18 ± 0.00
97.01 ± 0.02
96.97 ± 0.02
95.91 ± 0.07
99.28 ± 0.01
MOOC
79.55 ± 2.76
75.48 ± 4.64
84.54 ± 0.05
92.81 ± 0.85
81.50 ± 0.22
85.17 ± 0.49
83.79 ± 0.16
89.26 ± 0.26
64.90 ± 1.88
72.35 ± 0.17
68.41 ± 1.18
81.94 ± 0.38
LastFM
71.67 ± 0.90
72.38 ± 0.75
73.39 ± 0.27
62.64 ± 2.26
86.99 ± 0.04
76.82 ± 0.38
75.81 ± 0.09
93.12 ± 0.05
63.91 ± 0.63
65.76 ± 0.57
63.67 ± 0.19
92.20 ± 0.04
Enron
84.06 ± 2.82
83.50 ± 2.64
76.08 ± 0.56
81.68 ± 2.21
89.42 ± 0.05
85.53 ± 0.30
81.62 ± 0.29
92.27 ± 0.09
86.13 ± 0.35
84.57 ± 0.68
71.82 ± 0.58
91.40 ± 0.22
UCI
89.16 ± 0.88
60.57 ± 8.46
82.60 ± 0.44
94.19 ± 0.38
95.17 ± 0.04
91.31 ± 3.18
93.51 ± 0.28
95.88 ± 0.14
86.68 ± 0.14
87.71 ± 0.06
88.05 ± 0.10
95.26 ± 0.09
Appendix
Table 8: Transductive Average Precision (AP) for dynamic link prediction with random ( rnd ), historical ( hist ), and inductive ( ind ) negative edge sampling. bold red and underlined blue emphasize best and 2nd-best results.
Datasets
JODIE
DyRep
TGAT
TGN
CAWN
TCL
GraphMixer
DyGFormer
CLDG
MaskDGNN
DVGMAE
DyG-WM
Wikipedia
94.75 ± 0.20
92.25 ± 0.22
80.33 ± 0.69
97.45 ± 0.06
97.22 ± 0.03
97.26 ± 0.08
96.33 ± 0.05
97.56 ± 0.03
89.39 ± 0.28
86.59 ± 0.20
82.19 ± 1.04
97.94 ± 0.02
Reddit
95.87 ± 0.13
95.19 ± 0.23
66.20 ± 1.64
96.24 ± 0.66
97.66 ± 0.03
96.45 ± 0.06
95.61 ± 0.08
97.74 ± 0.02
94.68 ± 0.06
95.02 ± 0.04
93.54 ± 0.18
97.90 ± 0.06
MOOC
78.67 ± 1.16
75.82 ± 3.14
79.46 ± 0.43
89.71 ± 0.64
81.86 ± 0.21
81.88 ± 1.08
81.71 ± 0.20
87.24 ± 0.30
61.43 ± 0.51
69.48 ± 0.39
65.55 ± 0.93
79.74 ± 0.48
LastFM
82.84 ± 0.84
82.01 ± 1.45
78.54 ± 0.16
62.93 ± 3.73
89.44 ± 0.04
80.93 ± 0.78
81.98 ± 0.11
92.22 ± 0.09
66.60 ± 1.18
67.66 ± 0.63
65.99 ± 0.41
92.61 ± 0.17
Enron
80.62 ± 2.01
70.73 ± 1.73
71.10 ± 0.35
72.08 ± 2.32
86.31 ± 0.21
82.54 ± 0.40
76.70 ± 0.16
89.89 ± 0.13
76.55 ± 1.20
74.24 ± 1.44
59.32 ± 0.79
86.75 ± 0.56
UCI
78.46 ± 3.21
58.76 ± 6.47
79.51 ± 0.30
87.78 ± 2.28
92.10 ± 0.09
82.22 ± 1.31
90.91 ± 0.13
92.99 ± 0.06
76.78 ± 0.32
77.92 ± 0.24
77.93 ± 0.15
93.38 ± 0.18
Appendix
Table 9: Inductive Average Precision (AP) for dynamic link prediction in the inductive (new-node) setting with random negative edge sampling. Bold red and underlined blue indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 6: Latent alignment with and without the predictive objective in the Wikipedia dataset.
Figure 7: Latent alignment with and without the predictive objective in the UCI dataset.
Figure 8: Accuracy-efficiency trade-off across all dynamic link prediction datasets. Each panel reports AUC-ROC against training time.
LJEPA=
λNLN+λRLR
(13)
+λvar(LvarN+LvarR)+λcov(LcovN+LcovR).
Appendix
Algorithm 2 Dual-level joint-embedding predictive training
World models infer latent states of an environment to capture its underlying dynamics and predict future evolution. Many real-world environments, however, are inherently relational and observed as evolving graphs, where entities, relations, and their properties change over time. Prior graph-related world models use graph structures to organize internal states or support task-specific reasoning, rather than treating an evolving graph itself as the modeled world. We instead study graph world modeling (GWM), where graph evolution itself constitutes the world dynamics. We formulate graph world modeling over observed graph evolution, latent graph states, and heterogeneous graph-transition predictions. Based on this formulation, we construct GWM-Zero, a benchmark covering node-, edge-, and graph-level transitions over eight temporal graph datasets. We propose WorldGraph, which combines a state-aware graph transformer for multi-granularity structural and transition-conditioned evolution modeling with transition-aware GRPO using dynamic grouping and structure-aware verifiable rewards. Extensive experiments on GWM-Zero show that WorldGraph consistently outperforms representative graph representation, temporal graph learning, graph pretraining, and graph world-model baselines across all three transition granularities.
Zezhong Ding, Yipeng Li, Xike Xie
School of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) · Data Darkness Lab, Suzhou Institute for Advanced Research, USTC · School of Biomedical Engineering, USTC
Graph-based world models have recently emerged as a means of learning transitions over relational state representations. However, existing approaches are largely limited to fixed-topology graphs or deterministic, fully observable environments. We propose the Graph Dynamics Model (GDM), a world model for graph-structured observations that is designed to handle the more general setting of evolving topologies in stochastic and partially observable environments. The GDM uses a sparse recurrent adjacency matrix to model topology updates and perform message passing, together with a recurrent state-space architecture for modelling stochastic transitions. Furthermore, we identify a gap in the evaluation of graph-based world models, as existing methods do not provide a means of comparing predicted and true distributions over the joint graph state comprising the interdependent topology, node features, and graph features. We therefore introduce the Graph Distribution Distance (GDD) metric, which uses maximum mean discrepancy with a graph kernel to comprehensively compare joint next-state distributions. We evaluate the GDM across several environments, including stochastic and partially observable settings. We demonstrate that GDM outperforms baseline models and displays zero-shot generalisation on large graphs.
Alex Schutz, Nick Hawes, Victor-Alexandru Darvariu
Dynamic graphs are common in real-world systems such as social media, recommender systems, and traffic networks. Existing dynamic graph models for link prediction often fall short in capturing the complexity of temporal evolution. They tend to overlook fine-grained variations in temporal interaction order, struggle with dependencies that span long time horizons, and offer limited capability to model pair-specific relational dynamics. To address these challenges, we propose Graph2Video, a video-inspired framework that views the temporal neighborhood of a target link as a sequence of "graph frames". By stacking temporally ordered subgraph frames into a "graph video", Graph2Video leverages the inductive biases of video foundation models to capture both fine-grained local variations and long-range temporal dynamics. It generates a link-level embedding that serves as a lightweight and plug-and-play link-centric memory unit. This embedding integrates seamlessly into existing dynamic graph encoders, effectively addressing the limitations of prior approaches. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets show that Graph2Video outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the link prediction task in most cases. The results highlight the potential of borrowing spatio-temporal modeling techniques from computer vision as a promising and effective approach for advancing dynamic graph learning.
Hua Liu, Yanbin Wei, Fei Xing +3
Southern University of Science and Technology · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · City University of Hong Kong +2