MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206865191 · doi:10.1145/3488560.3498419

Modeling Scale-free Graphs with Hyperbolic Geometry for Knowledge-aware Recommendation

2022· article· en· W4206865191 on OpenAlexaff
Yankai Chen, Meng‐Lin Yang, Yingxue Zhang, Mengchen Zhao, Ziqiao Meng, Jianye Hao, Irwin King

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge graphComputer scienceRecommender systemTheoretical computer scienceSemantics (computer science)GraphSemantic spaceENCODEUnificationInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming to alleviate data sparsity and cold-start problems of tradi- tional recommender systems, incorporating knowledge graphs (KGs) to supplement auxiliary information has recently gained considerable attention. Via unifying the KG with user-item interactions into a tripartite graph, recent works explore the graph topologies to learn the low-dimensional representations of users and items with rich semantics. These real-world tripartite graphs are usually scale-free, however, the intrinsic hierarchical graph structures of which are underemphasized in existing works, consequently, leading to suboptimal recommendation performance. To address this issue and provide more accurate recommendation, we propose a knowledge-aware recommendation method with Lorentz model of the hyperbolic geometry, namely Lorentzian Knowledge-enhanced Graph convolutional networks for Recommendation (LKGR). LKGR facilitates better modeling of scale-free tripartite graphs after the data unification. Specifically, we employ different information propagation strategies in the hyperbolic space to explicitly encode heterogeneous information from historical interactions and KGs. Additionally, our proposed knowledge-aware attention mechanism enables the model to automatically measure the information contribution, producing the coherent information aggregation in the hyperbolic space. Extensive experiments on three real-world benchmarks demonstrate that LKGR outperforms state-of-the-art methods by 3.6-15.3% of [email protected] on Top-K recommendation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data MiningSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207