Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 60 references

Technology Mapping with Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read STARS, a framework combining LLM-based chain-of-thought entity extraction with Sentence-BERT semantic ranking, achieves P@3 of 0.762 in company-to-technology retrieval, outperforming CoT alone by 14.2% and single prompting by 30.7%.

desk verdict A coherent LLM+SBERT pipeline for company-technology mapping whose headline precision gains are measured against the same Crunchbase labels used to build the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15120 v1 pith:W3JW75QH submitted 2025-01-25 cs.IR cs.DBcs.ETcs.LG

Minh Hieu Nguyen , Hien Thu Pham , Hiep Minh Ha , Ngoc Quang Hung Le , Jun Jo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.DBcs.ETcs.LG
keywords technologymappinglargelanguagemodelschain-of-thoughtpromptingSentence-BERTsemanticrankingcompany-technologyretrievalprecisionatkentityextraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes STARS, a pipeline that extracts technology entities from unstructured company documents using an LLM guided by chain-of-thought prompting, then ranks those technologies against a predefined list by embedding company summaries and technology definitions with Sentence-BERT and computing cosine similarity. The central claim is that this two-stage design — reasoning-based extraction plus semantic ranking — improves retrieval accuracy over prompting alone, with top-3 precision of 0.762 in company-to-technology retrieval and 0.725 in technology-to-company retrieval. If the claim holds, the framework offers a practical way to map corporate technology portfolios from public text without hand-labeled training data, including technologies that keyword searches miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the STARS pipeline itself. Stage one is a chain-of-thought prompt with three steps — extract likely entities, summarize the company's technological portfolio, and verify which entities are really technologies using a labeled list of 1,356 technology categories — optionally supported by a few-shot examples. Stage two embeds each technology from its name plus definition, and embeds the company by fusing its summary embedding with the candidate technology embeddings. Stage three scores every company-technology pair by cosine similarity $S_{\text{rank}}(c_i,t_j) = \frac{e^{\text{SBERT}}_{c_i} \cdot e^{\text{SBERT}}_{t_j}}{\|e^{\text{SBERT}}_{c_i}\| \, \|e^{\text{SBERT}}_{t_j}\|}$ and returns the top-k technologies. The paper's design claim is that the chain-of-thought extraction catches implicit and emerging technologies while SBERT supplies the context-sensitive ranking that LLM prompting alone does not.

What would settle it

A concrete test: build a held-out evaluation set in which companies are annotated by independent human judges on which technologies from the 176-item list they actually use, then run STARS, chain-of-thought, and single-prompt retrieval on the same documents; if STARS's top-3 precision advantage over chain-of-thought drops below 14.2% or reverses, the claimed boost is an artifact of the company-database labels rather than a genuine retrieval improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that separating the task into LLM-driven extraction with chain-of-thought steps and Sentence-BERT semantic ranking yields consistently higher precision than either single prompting or chain-of-thought prompting alone, across both retrieval directions. STARS reaches P@3 of 0.762 versus 0.667 for chain-of-thought prompting and 0.583 for single prompting in company-to-technology retrieval, and 0.725 versus 0.628 and 0.582 in technology-to-company retrieval. The paper reports the same ordering at top-5, top-7, and top-10, and attributes the gain to SBERT's ability to capture contextual similarity between an aggregated company profile and technology embeddings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the industry categories assigned to companies in the public company-listing database used for evaluation faithfully reflect which technologies each company actually works on; if those labels are incomplete, noisy, or self-confirming with the sampling scheme, the reported precision scores do not measure real technology-mapping quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With only five few-shot examples, P@3 rises from 0.667 to 0.762 and then stabilizes, so near-peak precision needs no large training set.
  • SBERT ranking beats TF-IDF and LLM-generated relevance scores at every tested k, indicating the ranking component is the main driver of the precision gain.
  • Because the pipeline ingests unstructured text from websites, patents, and job postings, it transfers across industries without task-specific annotations.
  • The framework also supports the reverse query — finding companies for a given technology — with comparable precision gains, so it can answer both directions of the company-technology mapping problem.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves untested is retrieval of technologies outside the predefined 176-item list; extraction is open-ended, but ranking is restricted to that list, so precision on genuinely novel technologies remains unknown.
  • The same architecture could be run incrementally: re-extract from newly arriving documents and re-rank against existing technology embeddings, enabling streaming or longitudinal technology intelligence.
  • The reported advantage may depend on the particular Sentence-BERT model; a testable check is whether the margin persists across different sentence-transformer checkpoints.
  • Because ground truth comes from the company database's own industry categories, an independent human-annotated relevance test would show whether the 14-30% gains reflect true retrieval quality or alignment with those categories.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes STARS, a pipeline for technology mapping that combines LLM-based entity extraction with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and Sentence-BERT (SBERT) semantic ranking. Given unstructured documents about a company, the LLM extracts technology-related entities, summarizes the company's technological profile, and classifies candidate technologies; SBERT then ranks technologies by embedding the company profile and technology definitions and computing cosine similarity. The authors evaluate on a dataset built from Crunchbase: they select 176 Crunchbase industry categories as technologies and crawl 50 companies per category, yielding 6,597 companies. Using P@k against Crunchbase's own industry labels as ground truth, they report that STARS outperforms single-prompt and CoT-prompting baselines, with the largest gain in company-to-technology retrieval (P@3 = 0.762, a 14.2% improvement over CoT and 30.7% over single prompting). They also report a few-shot analysis and a comparison of SBERT against TF-IDF and ChatGPT-based ranking.

Significance. If the empirical claims are reliable, the paper offers a practical and scalable recipe for company-technology mapping that does not require task-specific training data: LLM-based extraction with CoT prompting plus SBERT ranking is a sensible architecture, and the few-shot analysis with a labeled technology set from prior work is a reasonable way to constrain the LLM. The pipeline is described in a way that is largely reproducible (apart from missing details on aggregation and the exact SBERT model). However, the central contribution is an empirical one, and the evaluation has validity problems that directly affect the strength of the claims: the ground truth is the same Crunchbase taxonomy used to construct the candidate technology set, there are no statistical significance tests or error bars, and the closest prior system is not compared. These issues mean that the reported margins may not reflect real-world mapping quality. The paper is a useful proof-of-concept, but the evidence as presented does not yet support the claim that STARS 'markedly boosts retrieval accuracy'.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (7)]
  2. [Table 1 and Figure 3]
  3. [Section 2 and Section 5.3]
minor comments (7)
  1. [Equation (3)]
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (5)]
  3. [Section 5.1]
  4. [Section 5.3, Figure 3 text]
  5. [Section 4.2 and Figure 4]
  6. [Throughout]
  7. [Abstract and Section 6]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the STARS pipeline is self-contained, though the Crunchbase-derived benchmark limits external validity.

full rationale

STARS is a two-stage pipeline: an LLM with CoT prompting extracts candidate technologies, and Sentence-BERT ranks them by cosine similarity against a company profile. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation labels: the system uses a pretrained SBERT model and an externally built labeled technology list from the prior study [25], and the few-shot examples are hand-designed. Equation (6) scores technologies against a profile built in Equation (5) from the summary plus extracted-technology embeddings; this is query expansion, not a tautology, because the top-k outcome still depends on the relative similarities among candidates and can rank extracted technologies low or non-extracted technologies high. The central weakness is benchmark validity, not circularity: in Section 5.1 both the 176-technology candidate list and the relevance labels R(c_i) in Equation (7) are Crunchbase industry categories, so P@k measures agreement with Crunchbase's own taxonomy rather than an independently validated technology portfolio. This is an external-validity concern, not an equation-level reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Self-citations in the reference list are not load-bearing, and no uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported from prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No mathematical free parameters are fit to data. The main unstated choices are the few-shot example count (data-dependent), the undefined company-profile aggregation function f in Equation 5, the Crunchbase-derived ground truth, and the fixed 176-technology list. These are domain assumptions rather than fitted constants, and no physical entities are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • number of few-shot examples = 5 (P@3 0.762; 7 examples yields 0.765)
    Selected from the few-shot curve in Figure 3 to balance precision and diminishing returns; the choice is data-dependent and not justified a priori.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Chain-of-Thought prompting enables the LLM to infer technologies not explicitly mentioned in a company's documents.
    Section 4.1 and Section 3.3 depend on this to handle emerging and implicit technologies; the paper provides no ablation isolating CoT's inference benefit beyond the prompt comparison in Table 1.
  • domain assumption Crunchbase industry categories are accurate and sufficient relevance labels for companies.
    Section 5.1 builds ground truth by sampling companies from Crunchbase under each technology category and scoring against those same categories; label noise changes all reported P@k values.
  • domain assumption The 176-technology list covers the relevant technologies of all 6,597 companies.
    Section 5.1 restricts ranking to this predefined list, so any company technology outside the list is scored as an error.
  • domain assumption Sentence-BERT embeddings of an LLM-generated company summary and a technology name or definition capture operational relevance.
    Section 4.2, Equations 4 through 6, defines relevance purely as cosine similarity in SBERT embedding space; no evidence specific to technology mapping is given for this embedding space.
  • domain assumption Technology definitions generated by the LLM or taken from Wikipedia are accurate enough for embedding.
    Section 4.2 uses these definitions as inputs to Equation 4; inaccurate definitions would propagate to every similarity score.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Technology Mapping with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3JW75QH

@misc{pith2026250115120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Technology Mapping with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3JW75QH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15120}
}
read the original abstract

In today's fast-evolving business landscape, having insight into the technology stacks that organizations use is crucial for forging partnerships, uncovering market openings, and informing strategic choices. However, conventional technology mapping, which typically hinges on keyword searches, struggles with the sheer scale and variety of data available, often failing to capture nascent technologies. To overcome these hurdles, we present STARS (Semantic Technology and Retrieval System), a novel framework that harnesses Large Language Models (LLMs) and Sentence-BERT to pinpoint relevant technologies within unstructured content, build comprehensive company profiles, and rank each firm's technologies according to their operational importance. By integrating entity extraction with Chain-of-Thought prompting and employing semantic ranking, STARS provides a precise method for mapping corporate technology portfolios. Experimental results show that STARS markedly boosts retrieval accuracy, offering a versatile and high-performance solution for cross-industry technology mapping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15120 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Framework for Technology Landscape Mapping: STARS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our Chain-of-Thought Prompts for Technology Extraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of ranking methods for semantic matching. SBERT outperforms across all k values. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Aberer, From scattered sources to comprehensive technology landscape: A recommendation-based retrieval approach, World Patent Information 73 (2023) 102198

    C.T.Duong, D.P.David, L.Dolamic, A.Mermoud, V.Lenders, K. Aberer, From scattered sources to comprehensive technology landscape: A recommendation-based retrieval approach, World Patent Information 73 (2023) 102198

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Castells, M

    P. Castells, M. Rodriguez, R. Maspons, Technology mapping, business strategy, and market opportunities, Competitive Intel- ligence Review 11 (2001) 46 – 57

    work page 2001

  3. [2]

    D. C. Thang, H. T. Dat, N. T. Tam, J. Jo, N. Q. V. Hung, K. Aberer, Nature vs. nurture: Feature vs. structure for graph neural networks, PRL 159 (2022) 46–53

    2022

  4. [3]

    C. T. Duong, T. T. Nguyen, H. Yin, M. Weidlich, T. S. Mai, K. Aberer, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Efficient and effective multi-modal queries through heterogeneous network embed- ding, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34 (2022) 5307–5320

    2022

  5. [4]

    T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, H. Yin, B. Zheng, Q. H. Nguyen, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Factcatch: Incremental pay-as-you-go fact checking with minimal user effort, in: Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Devel- opment in Information Retrieval, 2020, pp. 2165–2168

    2020

  6. [5]

    N. Q. V. Hung, D. C. Thang, N. T. Tam, M. Weidlich, K. Aberer, H. Yin, X. Zhou, Answer validation for generic crowdsourcing tasks with minimal efforts, The VLDB Journal 26 (2017) 855–880

    2017

  7. [6]

    Q. V. H. Nguyen, C. T. Duong, T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, K. Aberer, H. Yin, X. Zhou, Argument discovery via crowd- sourcing, The VLDB Journal 26 (2017) 511–535

    2017

  8. [7]

    Putthividhya, J.-S

    D. Putthividhya, J.-S. Hu, Bootstrapped named entity recog- nition for product attribute extraction, in: EMNLP, 2011, pp. 1557–1567

    work page 2011

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, et al., Language models are few-shot learners, NeurIPS 33 (2020) 1877–1901

    2020

  2. [9]

    J. Wei, Y. Tay, R. Bommasani, et al., Emergent abilities of large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Zhang, J

    X. Zhang, J. Sun, R. Cao, Q. Yang, W. Gong, J. Han, Oa- mine: Open-world attribute mining for e-commerce products with weak supervision, in: TheWebConf, 2022, pp. 2785–2796

    2022

  4. [11]

    W. R. Hersh, Information Retrieval and Digital Libraries, 2014, pp. 613–641

    2014

  5. [12]

    C. C. Aggarwal, Machine Learning for Text, Springer, 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    J. Rao, W. Yang, Y. Zhang, F. Ture, J. Lin, Multi-perspective relevance matching with hierarchical convnets for social media search, in: AAAI, volume 33, 2019, pp. 232–240

    2019

  7. [14]

    I. A. Heggo, N. Abdelbaki, Data-Driven Information Filter- ing Framework for Dynamically Hybrid Job Recommendation, 2021, pp. 23–49. 7

    2021

  8. [15]

    B. S. Aharonson, M. A. Schilling, Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological foot- prints, and technology evolution, Research Policy 45 (2016) 81–96

    2016

  9. [16]

    Hossari, S

    M. Hossari, S. Dev, J. D. Kelleher, Test: A terminology extrac- tion system for technology-related terms, in: ICCAE, 2019, pp. 78–81

    2019

  10. [17]

    B. Zhao, H. van der Aa, T. T. Nguyen, Q. V. H. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, Eires: Efficient integration of remote data in event stream processing, in: Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data, 2021, pp. 2128–2141

    2021

  11. [18]

    T. T. Huynh, C. T. Duong, T. T. Nguyen, V. T. Van, A. Sattar, H. Yin, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Network alignment with holistic embeddings, TKDE 35 (2021) 1881–1894

    2021

  12. [19]

    C. T. Duong, T. T. Nguyen, T.-D. Hoang, H. Yin, M. Wei- dlich, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Deep mincut: Learning node embed- dings from detecting communities, Pattern Recognition (2022) 109126

    2022

  13. [20]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. C. Phan, M. H. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, H. Yin, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Model-agnostic and diverse explana- tions for streaming rumour graphs, Knowledge-Based Systems 253 (2022) 109438

    2022

  14. [21]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Huynh, H. Yin, M. Weidlich, T. T. Nguyen, T. S. Mai, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Detecting rumours with latency guarantees using massive streaming data, The VLDB Journal (2022) 1–19

    2022

  15. [22]

    H. T. Trung, T. Van Vinh, N. T. Tam, J. Jo, H. Yin, N. Q. V. Hung, Learning holistic interactions in lbsns with high-order, dynamic, andmulti-rolecontexts, IEEETransactionsonKnowl- edge and Data Engineering 35 (2022) 5002–5016

    2022

  16. [23]

    T. T. Huynh, M. H. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, P. L. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, Q. V. H. Nguyen, K. Aberer, Efficient integration of multi-order dynamics and internal dynamics in stock move- ment prediction, in: Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Inter- national Conference on Web Search and...

    2023

  17. [24]

    Y. Li, X. Zhang, W. Gong, C. Shi, J. Lin, J. Han, Mave: A product dataset for multi-source attribute value extraction, in: WSDM, 2022, pp. 1300–1308

    2022

  18. [26]

    Nguyen Thanh, N

    T. Nguyen Thanh, N. D. K. Quach, T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Huynh, V. H. Vu, P. L. Nguyen, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Poisoning gnn- basedrecommendersystemswithgenerativesurrogate-basedat- tacks, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41 (2023) 1–24

    2023

  19. [27]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. C. Phan, H. T. Pham, T. T. Nguyen, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Example-based explanations for streaming fraud detection on graphs, Information Sciences 621 (2023) 319–340

    2023

  20. [28]

    Q. V. H. Nguyen, T. Nguyen Thanh, Z. Miklós, K. Aberer, Reconciling schema matching networks through crowdsourc- ing, EAI Endorsed Transactions on Collaborative Computing 1 (2014) e2

    2014

  21. [29]

    Q. V. H. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, V. T. Chau, T. K. Wijaya, Z. Miklós, K. Aberer, A. Gal, M. Weidlich, Smart: A tool for analyzingandreconcilingschemamatchingnetworks, in: ICDE, 2015, pp. 1488–1491

    2015

  22. [30]

    D. C. Thang, N. T. Tam, N. Q. V. Hung, K. Aberer, An evalu- ation of diversification techniques, in: International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 2015, pp. 215– 231

    2015

  23. [31]

    Q. V. H. Nguyen, S. T. Do, T. T. Nguyen, K. Aberer, Tag-based paper retrieval: minimizing user effort with diversity awareness, in: International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, 2015, pp. 510–528

    2015

  24. [32]

    N. Q. V. Hung, M. Weidlich, N. T. Tam, Z. Miklós, K. Aberer, A. Gal, B. Stantic, Handling probabilistic integrity constraints in pay-as-you-go reconciliation of data models, Information Sys- tems 83 (2019) 166–180

    2019

  25. [33]

    Brinkmann, R

    A. Brinkmann, R. Shraga, R. Der, C. Bizer, Product informa- tion extraction using chatgpt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14921 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kojima, S

    T. Kojima, S. Gu, M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, Y. Iwasawa, Large language models are zero-shot reasoners, arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhang, R

    X. Zhang, R. Cao, W. Gong, J. Han, Semantic matching with bert for open attribute value extraction, in: TheWebConf, 2022, pp. 1300–1308

    2022

  28. [36]

    C. Yang, W. Yuan, L. Qu, T. T. Nguyen, Pdc-frs: Privacy- preservingdatacontributionforfederatedrecommendersystem, in: International Conference on Advanced Data Mining and Applications, Springer, 2024, pp. 65–79

    2024

  29. [37]

    Sakong, V

    D. Sakong, V. H. Vu, T. T. Huynh, P. Le Nguyen, H. Yin, Q. V. H. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, Higher-order knowledge- enhanced recommendation with heterogeneous hypergraph multi-attention, Information Sciences 680 (2024) 121165

    2024

  30. [38]

    T. T. Huynh, T. B. Nguyen, P. L. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, Q. V. H. Nguyen, K. Aberer, Fast-fedul: A training-free federated unlearning with provable skew resilience, in: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer, 202...

    2024

  31. [39]

    T. T. Huynh, T. B. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, P. L. Nguyen, H. Yin, Q. V. H. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, Certified unlearning for federated recommendation, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen, H. Yin, T. T. Nguyen, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Isomorphic graph embed- ding for progressive maximal frequent subgraph mining, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15 (2023) 1–26

    2023

  33. [41]

    T. T. Nguyen, Z. Ren, T. T. Nguyen, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, H.Yin, Portablegraph-basedrumourdetectionagainst multi-modal heterophily, Knowledge-Based Systems 284 (2024) 111310

    2024

  34. [42]

    T.T.Nguyen, T.C.Phan, Q.V.H.Nguyen, K.Aberer, B.Stan- tic, Maximal fusion of facts on the web with credibility guar- antee, Information Fusion 48 (2019) 55–66

    2019

  35. [43]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, B. Vo, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Judo: Just-in-time rumour detection in streaming social platforms, Information Sciences 570 (2021) 70–93

    2021

  36. [44]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Huynh, P. L. Nguyen, A. W.-C. Liew, H. Yin, Q. V. H. Nguyen, A survey of machine unlearning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02299 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T. T. Nguyen, N. Quoc Viet Hung, T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Huynh, T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, H. Yin, Manipulating recommender systems: A survey of poisoning attacks and countermeasures, ACM Computing Surveys 57 (2024) 1–39

    2024

  38. [46]

    T. T. Nguyen, Q. V. Hung Nguyen, M. Weidlich, K. Aberer, Result selection and summarization for web table search, in: 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering, 2015, pp. 231–242

    2015

  39. [47]

    N. T. Tam, M. Weidlich, D. C. Thang, H. Yin, N. Q. V. Hung, Retaining data from streams of social platforms with mini- mal regret, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, 2017, pp. 2850–2856. URL: https://doi.org...

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    N. T. Tam, M. Weidlich, B. Zheng, H. Yin, N. Q. V. Hung, B. Stantic, From anomaly detection to rumour detection using data streams of social platforms, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 12 (2019) 1016–1029

    2019

  41. [49]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. D. Hoang, M. T. Pham, T. T. Vu, T. H. Nguyen, Q.-T. Huynh, J. Jo, Monitoring agriculture areas with satellite images and deep learning, Applied Soft Computing 95 (2020) 106565

    2020

  42. [50]

    T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, H. Yin, B. Zheng, Q. V. H. Nguyen, B.Stantic, Userguidanceforefficientfactchecking, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 12 (2019) 850–863. 8

    2019

  43. [51]

    N. T. Tam, H. T. Trung, H. Yin, T. Van Vinh, D. Sakong, B. Zheng, N. Q. V. Hung, Entity alignment for knowledge graphs with multi-order convolutional networks, TKDE 34 (2022) 4201–4214

    2022

  44. [52]

    T. T. Nguyen, M. T. Pham, T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Huynh, Q. V. H. Nguyen, T. T. Quan, et al., Structural representa- tion learning for network alignment with self-supervised anchor links, Expert Systems with Applications 165 (2021) 113857

    2021

  45. [53]

    Reimers, I

    N. Reimers, I. Gurevych, Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks, in: EMNLP, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    S.-W. Lee, J. Tanveer, A. M. Rahmani, H. Alinejad-Rokny, P. Khoshvaght, G. Zare, P. M. Alamdari, M. Hosseinzadeh, Sfgcn: Synergetic fusion-based graph convolutional networks approach for link prediction in social networks, Information Fusion (2024) 102684

    2024

  47. [55]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Hu, L. Y. Zhang, J. Shi, M. Li, X. Liu, H. Jin, Why does little robustness help? a further step towards under- standing adversarial transferability, in: S&P, volume 2, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    H. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Zhang, J. Deng, C. Chen, L. Y. Zhang, Matrix factorization recommender based on adaptive gaussian differential privacy for implicit feedback, IPM 61 (2024) 103720

    2024

  49. [57]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Huynh, Z. Ren, T. T. Nguyen, P. L. Nguyen, H. Yin, Q. V. H. Nguyen, Privacy-preserving explain- able ai: a survey, Science China Information Sciences 68 (2025) 111101

    2025

  50. [58]

    M. T. Pham, T. T. Huynh, T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, J. Jo, H. Yin, Q. V. Hung Nguyen, A dual benchmark- ing study of facial forgery and facial forensics, CAAI Transac- tions on Intelligence Technology (????)

  51. [59]

    D. D. A. Nguyen, M. H. Nguyen, P. L. Nguyen, J. Jo, H. Yin, T. T. Nguyen, Multi-task learning of heterogeneous hypergraph representations in lbsns, in: International Conference on Ad- vanced Data Mining and Applications, Springer, 2024, pp. 161– 177

    2024

  52. [60]

    T. T. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, M. Weidlich, J. Jo, Q. V. H. Nguyen, H. Yin, A. W.-C. Liew, Handling low homophily in rec- ommender systems with partitioned graph transformer, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024). 9

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.