Graph Neural Collaborative Topic Model for Citation Recommendation
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
Due to the overload of published scientific articles, citation recommendation has long been a critical research problem for automatically recommending the most relevant citations of given articles. Relational topic models (RTMs) have shown promise on citation prediction via joint modeling of document contents and citations. However, existing RTMs can only capture pairwise or direct (first-order) citation relationships among documents. The indirect (high-order) citation links have been explored in graph neural network–based methods, but these methods suffer from the well-known explainability problem. In this article, we propose a model called Graph Neural Collaborative Topic Model that takes advantage of both relational topic models and graph neural networks to capture high-order citation relationships and to have higher explainability due to the latent topic semantic structure. Experiments on three real-world citation datasets show that our model outperforms several competitive baseline methods on citation recommendation. In addition, we show that our approach can learn better topics than the existing approaches. The recommendation results can be well explained by the underlying topics.
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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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