MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412376966 · doi:10.1145/3726302.3729932

Comprehending Knowledge Graphs with Large Language Models for Recommender Systems

2025· article· en· W4412376966 on OpenAlexaff
Ziqiang Cui, Yunpeng Weng, Xing Tang, Fuyuan Lyu, Dugang Liu, Xiuqiang He, Chen Ma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersYoung Scientists FundNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemKnowledge graphNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the introduction of knowledge graphs (KGs) has significantly advanced recommender systems by facilitating the discovery of potential associations between items. However, existing methods still face several limitations. First, most KGs suffer from missing facts or limited scopes. Second, existing methods convert textual information in KGs into IDs, resulting in the loss of natural semantic connections between different items. Third, existing methods struggle to capture high-order connections in the global KG. To address these limitations, we propose a novel method called CoLaKG, which leverages large language models (LLMs) to improve KG-based recommendations. The extensive knowledge and remarkable reasoning capabilities of LLMs enable our method to supplement missing facts in KGs, and their powerful text understanding abilities allow for better utilization of semantic information. Specifically, CoLaKG extracts useful information from KGs at both local and global levels. By employing the item-centered subgraph extraction and prompt engineering, it can accurately understand the local information. In addition, through the semantic-based retrieval module, each item is enriched by related items from the entire knowledge graph, effectively harnessing global information. Furthermore, the local and global information are effectively integrated into the recommendation model through a representation fusion module and a retrieval-augmented representation learning module, respectively. Extensive experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of our method.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207