Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

SCRAG: Social Computing-Based Retrieval Augmented Generation for Community Response Forecasting in Social Media Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modular retrieval-augmented generation framework that conditions an LLM on a community's historical responses and external news can forecast social media reactions more accurately, realistically, and diversely than prompting alone.

desk verdict Useful modular RAG framework for forecasting community responses, but the headline numbers rest on partly circular cluster metrics and no human validation; worth reviewing seriously, not accepting at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16947 v1 pith:K7CMVGJL submitted 2025-04-18 cs.SI cs.AI

Dachun Sun , You Lyu , Jinning Li , Yizhuo Chen , Tianshi Wang , Tomoyoshi Kimura , Tarek Abdelzaher This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.AI
keywords socialmediaresponseforecastingretrieval-augmentedgenerationcomputingideologicalembeddingcommunitypredictionlargelanguagemodelsknowledgegraphemotiondistribution
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

SCRAG is a framework for forecasting how a community on X (formerly Twitter) will react to a real or hypothetical post, producing individual predicted replies rather than a single aggregated summary. Its central claim is that grounding an LLM in retrieval-augmented generation—historical responses from the target community plus current news and knowledge-graph relations—yields forecasts that match real reactions better in emotional tone, realism, and ideological diversity. Across six scenarios and multiple embedding models and LLMs, the paper reports average improvements of 10.2% in emotion JSD, 1.5% in LLM discrimination score, 4.1% in cluster matching, and 11.8% in cluster coverage over direct and few-shot prompting baselines. If the claim holds, the practical payoff is that public relations teams, public figures, and crisis managers could preview how a message would land before posting, including for emerging events that historical data alone does not cover.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the community-aware historical response retriever combined with an external knowledge module. Historical posts are first augmented with their conversational context and embedded twice: once semantically and once ideologically, where the ideological embedding comes from a variational graph autoencoder over the user–post interaction graph. The two representations are combined after UMAP dimension reduction and clustered with HDBSCAN, so each cluster stands in for a community with a shared stance. A maximal-marginal-relevance-style selection picks representative responses per cluster, and a SPLADE sparse lexical-and-expansion retriever pulls current news snippets and knowledge-graph triplets. The generation step allocates the forecast quota by cluster size, $M_k \propto |C_k| \cdot M$, and prompts the LLM with each cluster's examples, ideology summary, and external context; this joint conditioning is what forces the output to be diverse, emotionally aligned, and grounded in current facts.

What would settle it

Recompute cluster matching and coverage with a held-out clustering procedure that uses a different embedding model and a different clustering algorithm than the one SCRAG uses for retrieval and example selection, and check whether the reported average improvements persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that a social-computing-aware retrieval loop can turn a static LLM into a community response forecaster. SCRAG first augments each historical post with its reply-chain context, then embeds these augmented posts with both a text embedding model and an ideological embedding learned from the user–post interaction graph. For a new post, it retrieves similar past posts, gathers their real responses, and clusters those responses with UMAP followed by HDBSCAN on the combined embeddings, so each cluster represents a community with a shared stance. Representative responses per cluster are selected with a maximal-marginal-relevance-style diversity criterion, while a sparse SPLADE retriever separately fetches recent news snippets and knowledge-graph relation triplets. The LLM is then prompted once per cluster with the cluster's representative responses, a summary of its ideology, and the external context, and the number of responses per cluster is allocated in proportion to cluster size. The paper reports that this pipeline outperforms direct and few-shot prompting across six test scenarios, with the largest gains in emotional fidelity and cluster coverage, and its ablations show that the ideological embedding, sparse news retrieval, and knowledge-graph relations each contribute to the result.

Load-bearing premise

The central result rests on the assumption that the automatic evaluation metrics—especially cluster matching and cluster coverage, which use the same embedding model and HDBSCAN clustering procedure that SCRAG uses to select its generation examples—measure forecast quality fairly rather than favoring SCRAG by construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SCRAG can generate forecasts for hypothetical posts, so communicators could compare how alternative phrasings would be received by different ideological clusters before publishing.
  • Because the external-knowledge module supplies fresh news and entity relations, the same framework can forecast reactions to new events that are not represented in the historical response database, as the two adaptability-testing scenarios demonstrate.
  • The quota allocation proportional to cluster size makes the framework an activity forecaster as well as a content forecaster, predicting how much of the response volume each ideological community will contribute.
  • The framework's modularity across embedding models and LLMs means its gains are not tied to one proprietary model, supporting deployment under different resource constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because cluster matching and coverage are computed with the same embedding and clustering machinery SCRAG uses for retrieval, an independent human-rating study or a held-out clustering procedure would separate genuine forecast quality from alignment with the framework's own cluster geometry.
  • Editorial extension: the ideology representation is two-sided (pro/anti), so applying SCRAG to multi-polar debates would require extending the belief-representation component beyond a single axis.
  • Editorial extension: comparing the predicted per-cluster response counts against actual reply counts per stance in held-out responses would give a direct test of whether the quota-allocation heuristic also predicts community activity levels.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents SCRAG, a retrieval-augmented generation framework for forecasting community responses to social media posts. Given a new post, SCRAG retrieves semantically and ideologically similar historical posts, clusters the retrieved responses via UMAP+HDBSCAN on combined text and ideological embeddings, retrieves news articles and knowledge-graph triplets via SPLADE, and prompts an LLM to generate M responses with a per-cluster quota proportional to cluster size (Eq. 4). The framework is evaluated on six X/Twitter scenarios (Russophobia, US2020, COVID, UK, US2024, Gaza) against direct and few-shot prompting baselines, with four automatic metrics: emotion JSD, LLM discrimination score, cluster matching, and cluster coverage. The paper reports average improvements of 10.2%, 1.5%, 4.1%, and 11.8% over baselines, respectively, and includes ablations and a qualitative example. The central claim is that SCRAG produces more realistic, diverse, and ideologically distributed forecasts than the baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully substantiated, SCRAG would be a useful modular contribution to social-media response forecasting, demonstrating that grounding generation in community-aware historical retrieval and external knowledge improves LLM forecasts. Strengths of the paper include the release of code/data, the use of multiple embedding models and LLMs, the temporal masking of test data, and the ablation studies. The main weakness is that the two cluster-based metrics share the clustering procedure with the generation module, and the LLM-based metrics are not validated against human judgments; these issues bear directly on the paper's headline improvements. The significance of the work is therefore contingent on strengthening the evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A2 and Section III-B3] Cluster Matching Percentage and Cluster Coverage Percentage are computed with the same combined embedding and HDBSCAN clustering procedure that SCRAG uses to group retrieved historical responses and to allocate generation quota via Eq. (4). Because the generator's conditioning clusters and the evaluator's ground-truth clusters live in the same embedding geometry, these two metrics are favorably biased toward SCRAG by construction; a baseline that samples responses per cluster from the same clustering would also score highly on coverage. The authors should either evaluate with an independent clustering pipeline (e.g., different embeddings, a different clustering algorithm, or a held-out set of clusters) or replace these metrics with human-annotated diversity/relevance judgments.
  2. [Tables II and III] All evaluation results are reported as averages over 30 test posts without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Given the small number of test posts and the small absolute differences in some metrics (e.g., a 1.5% average improvement in LLM discrimination score), it is not possible to determine whether the reported gains are statistically reliable. Please report per-scenario variance, paired significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) across the 30 posts, and win rates across scenario-metric pairs.
  3. [Section IV-A2] The LLM-based Emotion JSD and LLM Discrimination Score are used as proxies for human judgments of emotional faithfulness and realism, but they are not validated against any human ratings. The paper justifies automatic metrics by budget constraints, yet without a small human-validation study (or evidence that these LLM judges have been previously validated for this task) the construct validity of these metrics is unestablished. Note also that the judges include models from the same family as the generator (e.g., Llama3.3-70B), which may further bias comparisons.
  4. [Table III] Despite the summary claim of improvements, a close reading of Table III shows that SCRAG underperforms the fewshot baseline in several scenario-metric pairs, e.g., Qwen2.5-32B on Russophobia Cluster Matching (58.15 vs. 63.70), Gemma2-9B on Russophobia LLM Discrimination Score (7.948 vs. 8.167), and Mistral-Large on UK Cluster Coverage (63.17 vs. 69.83). The paper needs a systematic win/loss summary across all comparisons and a discussion of these inconsistent cases rather than only reporting the average.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains duplicated content: Fig. 2 appears twice (once in Section III-D and once at the start of Section IV), Table I appears twice, and there are redundant duplicated paragraphs in Section IV. Please remove duplicates.
  2. [Table II] The header 'V oyageAI' contains an extra space; it should be 'VoyageAI'.
  3. [Section III-D] Equation numbering is inconsistent: the quota allocation equation is labeled Eq. (4) in one place and Eq. (1) in another. Please renumber all equations consistently.
  4. [Tables II and III] The parenthetical numbers in scenario headers (e.g., 'Rus (72)') are not explained in the table captions; please define them in the text (e.g., number of clusters used for the cluster-matching evaluation) or make the caption self-contained.
  5. [Section IV-A1] The code link is provided, but the paper says 'code and data' are available without specifying the license or conditions for data sharing; please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cluster metrics are computed on held-out real responses, not on the generation clusters.

full rationale

SCRAG's central claim is an empirical comparison against baselines, and its derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The two cluster-based metrics (Cluster Matching and Cluster Coverage) are defined by clustering the withheld real responses with the same UMAP+HDBSCAN and embedding procedure used in the generator (Section III-B3 vs IV-A2), but the evaluation clusters are recomputed from held-out data, not taken from the historical clusters that condition generation. Equation (4) allocates the number of generated responses in proportion to historical cluster sizes, yet it does not place generated responses into any evaluation cluster; the LLM outputs must actually fall inside the real-response clusters to score. Thus coverage and matching gains are empirical properties of the generated distribution, not guarantees by construction. The paper's use of its own prior ideological embedding methods (refs [7], [8]) is a tool citation, not a load-bearing uniqueness claim, and the ablation study independently confirms the value of the ideological component by removing it (Table V). The adoption of automatic LLM-based metrics is a validity limitation, but not a circularity, because the metrics are not defined in terms of the fitted parameters or retrieved examples used to produce the forecasts. Overall, the argument is self-contained relative to its stated baselines and held-out test posts, with no step where a prediction is equivalent to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the effectiveness of several learned components and on the validity of the evaluation metrics. No new physical or mathematical axioms are introduced. The main burden is empirical, especially the reliability of the automatic evaluation and the generalizability of the ideological clustering.

free parameters (6)
  • kp + kΔ (historical response retrieval counts)
    Hyperparameters that control how many similar posts are retrieved; must be tuned to the database size and ideological coverage (Section III-B2).
  • kn and kg (news and KG relation retrieval counts)
    Hyperparameters for the sparse retrieval module determining how many news snippets and KG triplets are injected into the prompt (Section III-C1).
  • kc (representative responses per cluster)
    Number of exemplar responses selected per discovered community for generation (Section III-B3).
  • M (forecast quota) = 30
    Total number of predicted responses generated per test post; set to 30 in experiments (Section IV-B).
  • UMAP and HDBSCAN hyperparameters
    Dimension reduction and clustering parameters that determine community discovery; not specified in the paper (Section III-B3).
  • LLM sampling temperature and seed randomization
    Decoding choices for diverse generation; mentioned only qualitatively (Section III-D).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The user-post interaction graph and variational graph autoencoder embeddings capture users' ideologies or beliefs.
    Relied upon in Section III-B1, drawing on InfoVGAE [7] and SGVGAE [8]; no independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption An LLM prompted with community examples and system instructions can role-play as a member of that community and generate realistic responses.
    Core to the generation module (Section III-D); not verified with human raters.
  • domain assumption Embedding-based similarity between the new post and historical posts identifies contexts where historical responses transfer.
    Underlies the historical response retriever (Section III-B2).
  • domain assumption SPLADE sparse retrieval is sufficient to find relevant, up-to-date news and KG relations for short social media queries.
    Design choice in Section III-C; no retrieval quality evaluation.
  • ad hoc to paper The default assumption of exactly two ideological sides (pro and anti) per topic is sufficient.
    Section III-B1: 'For each topic, the ideological sides default to pro- and anti-'. This simplification may miss multi-sided or non-polarized communities.
  • domain assumption LLM-based automatic metrics (emotion extraction, discrimination scoring) are valid proxies for human judgments of realism and emotion.
    Section IV-A2 states automatic metrics were chosen due to budget constraints; no validation against human ratings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCRAG: Social Computing-Based Retrieval Augmented Generation for Community Response Forecasting in Social Media Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7CMVGJL

@misc{pith2026250416947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCRAG: Social Computing-Based Retrieval Augmented Generation for Community Response Forecasting in Social Media Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7CMVGJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16947}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces SCRAG, a prediction framework inspired by social computing, designed to forecast community responses to real or hypothetical social media posts. SCRAG can be used by public relations specialists (e.g., to craft messaging in ways that avoid unintended misinterpretations) or public figures and influencers (e.g., to anticipate social responses), among other applications related to public sentiment prediction, crisis management, and social what-if analysis. While large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in generating coherent and contextually rich text, their reliance on static training data and susceptibility to hallucinations limit their effectiveness at response forecasting in dynamic social media environments. SCRAG overcomes these challenges by integrating LLMs with a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) technique rooted in social computing. Specifically, our framework retrieves (i) historical responses from the target community to capture their ideological, semantic, and emotional makeup, and (ii) external knowledge from sources such as news articles to inject time-sensitive context. This information is then jointly used to forecast the responses of the target community to new posts or narratives. Extensive experiments across six scenarios on the X platform (formerly Twitter), tested with various embedding models and LLMs, demonstrate over 10% improvements on average in key evaluation metrics. A concrete example further shows its effectiveness in capturing diverse ideologies and nuances. Our work provides a social computing tool for applications where accurate and concrete insights into community responses are crucial.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Framework architecture of SCRAG. • We demonstrate that our framework is highly modular and can admit various embedding models and LLMs, making it adaptable to different needs and resource availability. • We evaluate our framework through extensive experiments on multiple datasets, highlighting its ability to produce accurate and rich predictions. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents ou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Special instruction that focuses the embedding model Fig. 2: Special instruction that focuses the embedding model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in NIPS , vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    work page 1901

  2. [2]

    Emergent abilities of large language models,

    J. Wei, Y . Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler et al., “Emergent abilities of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Benchmarking large language models for news summariza- tion,

    T. Zhang, F. Ladhak, E. Durmus, P. Liang, K. McKeown, and T. B. Hashimoto, “Benchmarking large language models for news summariza- tion,” Transactions of the ACL , vol. 12, pp. 39–57, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal et al. , “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” Advances in NIPS , vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    The gdelt project

    “The gdelt project.” [Online]. Available: https://www.gdeltproject.org/

    work page

  7. [7]

    Unsupervised belief representation learning with information-theoretic variational graph auto-encoders,

    J. Li, H. Shao, D. Sun, R. Wang, Y . Yan, J. Li, S. Liu, H. Tong, and T. Abdelzaher, “Unsupervised belief representation learning with information-theoretic variational graph auto-encoders,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference , 2022, pp. 1728–1738

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Large language model-guided disentangled belief representation learning on polarized social graphs,

    J. Li, R. Han, C. Sun, D. Sun, R. Wang, J. Zeng et al. , “Large language model-guided disentangled belief representation learning on polarized social graphs,” in 33rd ICCCN. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–9

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville, “Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, S. Astels et al. , “hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering.” J. Open Source Softw. , vol. 2, no. 11, p. 205, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    The use of mmr, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries,

    J. Carbonell and J. Goldstein, “The use of mmr, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries,” in Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference , 1998, pp. 335–336

    1998

  4. [12]

    Splade: Sparse lexical and expansion model for first stage ranking,

    T. Formal, B. Piwowarski, and S. Clinchant, “Splade: Sparse lexical and expansion model for first stage ranking,” in Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference , 2021, pp. 2288–2292

    2021

  5. [13]

    Tweets in time of conflict: A public dataset tracking the twitter discourse on the war between ukraine and russia,

    E. Chen and E. Ferrara, “Tweets in time of conflict: A public dataset tracking the twitter discourse on the war between ukraine and russia,” in Proceedings of the 17th ICWSM , vol. 17, 2023, pp. 1006–1013

    2023

  6. [14]

    # election2020: the first public twitter dataset on the 2020 us presidential election,

    E. Chen, A. Deb, and E. Ferrara, “# election2020: the first public twitter dataset on the 2020 us presidential election,” Journal of Computational Social Science , pp. 1–18, 2022

    2020

  7. [15]

    Tracking social media discourse about the covid-19 pandemic: Development of a public coronavirus twitter data set,

    E. Chen, K. Lerman, and E. Ferrara, “Tracking social media discourse about the covid-19 pandemic: Development of a public coronavirus twitter data set,” JMIR Public Health and Surveillance , vol. 6, no. 2, p. e19273, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Nv-embed: Improved techniques for training llms as generalist embedding models,

    C. Lee, R. Roy, M. Xu, J. Raiman, M. Shoeybi, B. Catanzaro, and W. Ping, “Nv-embed: Improved techniques for training llms as generalist embedding models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17428 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size,

    G. Team, M. Riviere, S. Pathak, P. G. Sessa, C. Hardin, S. Bhupatiraju, L. Hussenot et al. , “Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Qwen2.5 technical report,

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei et al. , “Qwen2.5 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Yang, A. Fan et al. , “The llama 3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Measuring emotions and their derivatives,

    R. Plutchik, “Measuring emotions and their derivatives,” in The measure- ment of emotions . Elsevier, 1989, pp. 1–35

    1989

  13. [21]

    Data-driven response generation in social media,

    A. Ritter, C. Cherry, and B. Dolan, “Data-driven response generation in social media,” in EMNLP, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Topic aware neural response generation,

    C. Xing, W. Wu, Y . Wu, J. Liu, Y . Huang, M. Zhou, and W.-Y . Ma, “Topic aware neural response generation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Response generation by context-aware prototype editing,

    Y . Wu, F. Wei, S. Huang, Y . Wang, Z. Li, and M. Zhou, “Response generation by context-aware prototype editing,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 7281–7288

    2019

  16. [24]

    A controllable model of grounded response generation,

    Z. Wu, M. Galley, C. Brockett, Y . Zhang, X. Gao, C. Quirk, R. Koncel- Kedziorski, J. Gao, H. Hajishirzi, M. Ostendorf et al. , “A controllable model of grounded response generation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, vol. 35, no. 16, 2021, pp. 14 085–14 093

    2021

  17. [25]

    Retrieval augmented language model pre-training,

    K. Guu, K. Lee, Z. Tung, P. Pasupat, and M. Chang, “Retrieval augmented language model pre-training,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 3929–3938

    2020

  18. [26]

    A survey on retrieval- augmented text generation,

    H. Li, Y . Su, D. Cai, Y . Wang, and L. Liu, “A survey on retrieval- augmented text generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01110 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond,

    S. Robertson, H. Zaragoza et al., “The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond,” F oundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 333–389, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Variational graph auto-encoders,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Variational graph auto-encoders,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308, 2016

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.