Transfer Learning with Graph Attention Networks for Team 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
In order to complete a common goal, team recommendation problems identify an efficient group of experts who can collectively satisfy a set of required skills. A significant number of studies address this problem through graph-based approaches. Recently, researchers have started to see this problem as a social information retrieval and examine it through neural architectures that recommend the team of experts by learning a relationship between the skills and experts space. However, this learning process faces several challenges including (1) being unable to handle the modification of a network if the training process is over, (2) the time complexity of the learning process being high and proportional to the size of the network. In this paper, we propose a new architecture, LANT, which comprises transfer learning and neural team recommendation, to address these challenges based on graph neural networks and variational inference. Since the transfer learning of team recommendation is an unsupervised task, therefore, to learn node embedding in a self-supervised manner, we use Deep Graph Infomax with Graph Attention Networks as an encoder. We empirically demonstrate how LANT overcomes the challenges in the existing approaches and compare them against the state-of-the-art approaches in terms of effectiveness using the DBLP dataset.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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