Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 88 references

Variational Autoencoder-Based Approach to Latent Feature Analysis on Efficient Representation of Power Load Monitoring Data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a plain variational autoencoder, fed with power-load monitoring data split into vectors, imputes missing entries on the UK-DALE dataset with lower error than three graph-based benchmark models at 5% and 10% known…

desk verdict A standard VAE applied to load data, but the missing-data mechanism is never specified, so the claimed gains over recommender baselines are not reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08698 v1 pith:7WYEJNUH submitted 2025-06-10 cs.LG cs.AI

Boyu Xie , Tangtang Xie This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords variationalautoencoderpowerloadmonitoringdatahigh-dimensionalandincompletelatentfeatureanalysismissingimputationsmartgridUK-DALEdataset
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

Smart-grid power load monitoring produces high-dimensional, incomplete matrices that trip up load forecasting; this paper proposes filling the gaps with a variational autoencoder rather than the linear matrix-factorization or graph models usually applied. The method, VAE-LF, splits each parameter's time-days matrix into vectors, feeds them one by one into a standard VAE, and uses the learned low-dimensional latent representation to reconstruct the missing entries. The paper reports that on the UK-DALE household dataset, at both 5% and 10% known-entry densities, VAE-LF gives lower RMSE and MAE than HMLET, GTN, and LightGCN, with a larger advantage at the sparser setting. A sympathetic reader would take away the claim that nonlinear generative latent features beat graph-structured collaborative filtering on this power load monitoring imputation task, and that the vector-splitting trick is enough to adapt a plain VAE to high-dimensional incomplete data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the variational autoencoder itself: an encoder network that maps an input vector to the mean and variance of a Gaussian latent distribution, a reparameterized sample $z = \mu(x) + \sigma(x)\odot\varepsilon$, and a decoder that reconstructs the input. The ELBO objective in Equation (9) combines a mean-squared-error reconstruction term with the closed-form KL divergence to the standard normal prior, so gradient descent can train both networks. The paper's only adaptation to the high-dimensional incomplete setting is pre-processing: the $k$ time-days matrices are spliced along the time dimension into one $|N|\times|M|$ matrix, which is split into $M$ vectors that are fed sequentially into the VAE. The vector-splitting step is what lets a vanilla VAE, which expects dense vectors, run on data that is 90 to 95 percent unknown.

What would settle it

Reproduce the described encoder-decoder on the UK-DALE 21-day window and compare two training objectives: the unmasked loss of Equation (9) and a masked variant that restricts the reconstruction term to the observed entries, consistent with Equation (1). If the masked variant changes the 5% density RMSE materially away from the reported 0.1384, then the central comparison as written rests on an unspecified masking detail rather than on the VAE formulation the paper states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a standard variational autoencoder, trained with the ELBO objective and the reparameterization trick, can serve as a latent feature analysis model for high-dimensional incomplete (HDI) power load monitoring data. The input is built by splicing the $k$ parameter matrices (voltage, current, power, apparent power) of dimension $|N|\times|M|$ along the time dimension, splitting the result into $M$ vectors, and entering each vector sequentially into the encoder; the decoder reconstructs the vector from the latent sample $z$, and the Gaussian-form ELBO of Equation (9) is minimized. On the UK-DALE dataset (21 days, 86,400 samples per day, a 60/20/20 train/validation/test split), the model's RMSE at 5% known density is 0.1384 versus 0.1507 for HMLET, 0.1734 for GTN, and 0.1835 for LightGCN, with analogous MAE gains, and it remains ahead at 10% density. The paper concludes that VAE-LF extracts nonlinear latent features that linear matrix factorization cannot, and that its advantage grows as the known-data ratio shrinks.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes a standard VAE trained on the unmasked ELBO of Equation (9) can be applied to input vectors that are 90 to 95 percent missing, without specifying how the encoder sees the empty entries or how the reconstruction loss is limited to the few observed values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VAE-LF, as described, yields RMSE 0.1384 and MAE 0.0820 at 5% known density on UK-DALE, beating HMLET (0.1507/0.1072), GTN (0.1734/0.1268), and LightGCN (0.1835/0.1664).
  • At 10% known density, VAE-LF still leads on both metrics, though its margin over the second-best model narrows, supporting the paper's conclusion that the approach is most advantageous on low-sparsity-ratio data.
  • A standard variational autoencoder, trained with the Gaussian ELBO of Equation (9), is a sufficient latent feature analysis model for HDI power load monitoring data; no graph structure, collaborative filtering, or tensor factorization is required.
  • Power load forecasting pipelines that consume monitoring data can be fed the completed matrix from VAE-LF rather than dropping or mean-filling missing entries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit how missing entries enter the encoder and how the loss is restricted to observed entries: Equation (1) scores only known entries, while Equation (9) is unmasked; if training actually used a masked objective, the reported advantage would be a property of partial-input reconstruction rather than of the VAE per se.
  • The benchmarks are recommender-system models adapted to a power-monitoring matrix, so a fairer test would pit VAE-LF against imputation methods designed for time series or sensor data, which could close the reported margins.
  • A natural extension the paper does not test is whether the vector-splitting order matters: feeding day-vectors versus time-slot vectors, or batches of several vectors, may change both the latent semantics and the imputation error.
  • The evaluation covers 21 days from one dataset; extending to multiple households and year-long spans would show whether the 5%-density advantage holds when the time-days matrix is less redundant.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VAE-LF, a variational autoencoder for imputing missing entries in high-dimensional incomplete power load monitoring (PLM) data. The method splits a time-days matrix into vectors and feeds them sequentially through a VAE, using the reparameterization trick and an ELBO loss. Experiments on the UK-DALE dataset at 5% and 10% known-entry ratios report lower RMSE and MAE than three baselines: HMLET, GTN, and LightGCN. The central claim is that VAE-LF outperforms these benchmark models for PLM data imputation, especially at low sparsity ratios.

Significance. If the central claim were substantiated, the paper would offer a simple, standard VAE baseline for power-load data imputation, which is a practically relevant problem for smart-grid monitoring and forecasting. The paper's contribution, however, is limited in its current form: the method is a standard VAE with a vector-splitting input scheme, no theoretical analysis is provided, and no code or data release is mentioned. The empirical comparison is against graph-based recommender systems rather than established time-series imputation methods, and the results are reported without error bars, multiple runs, or significance tests. The paper also fails to specify how missing entries enter the VAE encoder and loss, making the reported advantage irreproducible as written. The literature review is extensive and the application direction is reasonable, but the paper does not yet meet the evidentiary standard for a journal publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, §3.3, Eq. (9)] The manuscript never specifies how missing entries are handled in the VAE. Equation (1) defines the objective only on observed entries Λ, but the VAE loss in Equation (9) is an unmasked reconstruction error ||x−x̂||² plus the KL term. Section 3.2 states that the encoder receives one input vector x_m at a time, but does not say how a vector with 90–95% missing entries is represented: no zero-imputation, masking, or observed-entry indicator is described. If the model is trained on zero-filled inputs, the reconstruction loss at unobserved positions drives predictions toward the filler rather than the missing value; if a masked loss is actually used, that is a different algorithm from the one presented. Either way, the central empirical claim in Table 1 cannot be reproduced from the paper as written.
  2. [§4.1.3, Table 1] The three baselines—HMLET, GTN, and LightGCN—are graph-based recommender systems designed for user-item interaction prediction, not for power-load time-series imputation. The claim that VAE-LF 'outperforms other benchmark models' is therefore not convincing without comparison to appropriate imputation methods such as matrix-factorization-based latent feature analysis, k-nearest-neighbor imputation, GAIN, or other generative imputation models. Table 1 also reports single RMSE and MAE values with no error bars, no repeated runs, and no significance tests; the reported improvements of 3.51% on D2 RMSE fall well within the range of random variation for a single split.
  3. [§4.1.1, §4.1.2, Eq. (13)] The train/validation/test split is ambiguous for the stated sparsity settings. The paper says the dataset is split into non-overlapping training (60%), validation (20%), and test (20%) subsets, but with only 5% or 10% of entries known, it is unclear how a disjoint test set of missing entries is defined. Equation (13) computes RMSE and MAE over a set Ω without defining whether Ω contains held-out missing entries or observed entries. The procedure for generating the missingness mask (e.g., random masking per row or per matrix) and the evaluation protocol on missing entries must be specified before the reported numbers can be interpreted.
  4. [§3.1.4, §4.2] The model's free parameters—latent dimension D, number of hidden units, activation details, learning rate, and optimization settings—are not reported. The paper claims a 'low-dimensional latent representation' but never gives the value of D or the network architecture in the experiments. Without this information, the experiments cannot be rerun, and the robustness of the reported performance to hyperparameter choice is unknown.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.3, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is garbled and difficult to read; the derivation of the ELBO should be rewritten with clear alignment of terms.
  2. [§3.1.4] Equation (8) and the surrounding text use inconsistent notation for the reconstruction likelihood; the paper says pθ(z|x) is Gaussian in the text but should refer to pθ(x|z).
  3. [§4.1.1] The term 'sparsity ratio' is ambiguous: the paper says a sparsity ratio of 5% means only 5% of entries are known, while in most of the cited literature sparsity refers to the fraction of missing entries. This should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is hard to interpret; the axis labels and the flow of vectors into the encoder/decoder should be explained more clearly in the caption.
  5. [§2, Definition 1] The definition of the spliced HDI matrix X has inconsistent dimensionality notation (k|N|×|M| versus k|M|×|N| in Section 3), which should be reconciled.
  6. [§4.2] The phrase 'significantly lower RMSE and MAE' is used without any statistical test; the paper should either report confidence intervals or soften the language.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivation is a standard VAE objective applied to a new imputation task, even though the missing-data handling is underspecified.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Section 3.1 constructs the VAE loss from the standard ELBO in Equations (2)-(9), and Sections 3.2-3.3 define the encoder and decoder with explicit equations. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; the RMSE and MAE results in Table 1 are evaluated on held-out test entries with a train/validation/test split. The only cited foundation is Kingma and Welling's standard VAE paper, which is external and machine-independent; the self-citation to Y. Xie in reference [75] is merely a related-work listing and is not load-bearing. The real weakness is that Equation (9) writes the reconstruction loss without a mask, while Equation (1) defines the objective only on observed entries, and the paper never states how 90-95% missing inputs are represented in the encoder or how the loss is restricted to observed positions. This is a serious reproducibility and correctness concern, not a circularity: no output is equal by construction to an input, and no fitted constant is passed off as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard variational autoencoder math and an unstated assumption about handling missing entries; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Latent dimension D = not reported
    The latent dimension in Definition 2 is a hyperparameter chosen by hand; the paper never reports its value or sensitivity analysis.
  • Network hyperparameters = not reported
    Layer sizes, learning rate, optimizer, batch size, and number of epochs are not given, so the model's performance depends on unspecified hand-chosen values.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Variational autoencoder with Gaussian prior and Gaussian approximate posterior (Equations 4 and 7)
    Standard variational autoencoder assumptions from Kingma and Welling [81], used without modification in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The UK-DALE dataset is representative of high-dimensional incomplete power load monitoring data
    The paper evaluates only on 21 days of UK-DALE data and generalizes to all power load monitoring data in the conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper Missing values can be handled by feeding raw incomplete vectors to the variational autoencoder
    The paper does not describe a masking mechanism or observed-only loss for training; Equation (9) has no mask, so the model implicitly assumes a complete-input variational autoencoder works on incomplete vectors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Autoencoder-Based Approach to Latent Feature Analysis on Efficient Representation of Power Load Monitoring Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WYEJNUH

@misc{pith2026250608698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Autoencoder-Based Approach to Latent Feature Analysis on Efficient Representation of Power Load Monitoring Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WYEJNUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08698}
}
read the original abstract

With the development of smart grids, High-Dimensional and Incomplete (HDI) Power Load Monitoring (PLM) data challenges the performance of Power Load Forecasting (PLF) models. In this paper, we propose a potential characterization model VAE-LF based on Variational Autoencoder (VAE) for efficiently representing and complementing PLM missing data. VAE-LF learns a low-dimensional latent representation of the data using an Encoder-Decoder structure by splitting the HDI PLM data into vectors and feeding them sequentially into the VAE-LF model, and generates the complementary data. Experiments on the UK-DALE dataset show that VAE-LF outperforms other benchmark models in both 5% and 10% sparsity test cases, with significantly lower RMSE and MAE, and especially outperforms on low sparsity ratio data. The method provides an efficient data-completion solution for electric load management in smart grids.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    By combining neural networks and Bayesian inference, VAE-LF is able to effectively learn the nonlinear latent features of the data

    Aiming at the high -dimensional incompleteness pro blem of PLM data , we propose the VAE -LF model, which introduces the VAE to the task of interpolating PLM missing data. By combining neural networks and Bayesian inference, VAE-LF is able to effectively learn the nonlinear latent features of the data. 2 Encoder µ σ z Decoder ε M · · · x1x2xM-1xM · · · x2...

  2. [2]

    This app roach makes full use of the serialization processing capability of VAE and adapts to the temporal characteristics and sparsity of PLM data

    We design a novel approach to PLM data processing by splitting the high -dimensional time-days matrix into vectors, which are sequentially input into the VAE LFA model for imputation. This app roach makes full use of the serialization processing capability of VAE and adapts to the temporal characteristics and sparsity of PLM data

  3. [3]

    VAE-LF comprises two co mponents: an Encoder and a Decoder

    Methodology The structure of VAE -LF is illustrated in Figure 1 . VAE-LF comprises two co mponents: an Encoder and a Decoder. The Encoder transforms the in put data x into a probability distribution , typically a Gaussian distribution, of the latent variable z. The Decoder is used to generate a new sample, which generates an approximation of the x by reco...

  4. [4]

    Fo r each parameter, it is sampled M times per day for a total of N days, which results in a time-days matrix of dimension |N|×|M|

    Preliminaries Definition 1 (HDI PLM data): PLM data involves data that includes measured parameters such as voltage, current, power, etc., sampled at fixed moments each day. Fo r each parameter, it is sampled M times per day for a total of N days, which results in a time-days matrix of dimension |N|×|M|. Assuming that a total of k parameters are sampled, ...

  5. [5]

    Temporal pattern-aware QoS prediction by Biased Non-negative Tucker Factorization of tensors,

    P. Tang, T. Ruan, H. Wu, and X. Luo, “Temporal pattern-aware QoS prediction by Biased Non-negative Tucker Factorization of tensors,” Neurocomputing, vol. 582, p. 127447, May 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Intelligent Systems for Power Load Forecasting: A Study Review,

    S. Jahan, V. Snasel, and S. Misak, “Intelligent Systems for Power Load Forecasting: A Study Review,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 22, p. 6105, Nov. 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    An L1-and-L2-regularized nonnegative tensor factorization for power load monitoring data imputation,

    X. Luo, Z. Hu, Z. Ma, Z. Lv, Q. Wang, and A. Zeng, “An L1-and-L2-regularized nonnegative tensor factorization for power load monitoring data imputation,” Front. Energy Res., vol. 12, p. 1420449, Jul. 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Application of load monitoring in appliances’ energy management – A review,

    Abubakar, S. N. Khalid, M. W. Mustafa, H. Shareef, and M. Mustapha, “Application of load monitoring in appliances’ energy management – A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 67, pp. 235–245, Jan. 2017

    2017

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    H. Wu, X. Wu, and X. Luo, Dynamic Network Representation Based on Latent Factorization of Tensors. in SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Modularity Maximization-Incorporated Nonnegative Tensor RESCAL Decomposition for Dynamic Community Detection,

    H. Fang, Q. Wang, Q. Hu, and H. Wu, “Modularity Maximization-Incorporated Nonnegative Tensor RESCAL Decomposition for Dynamic Community Detection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Kuching, Malaysia: IEEE, Oct. 2024, pp. 1871–1876

    2024

  3. [11]

    A Fast and Inherently Nonnegative Latent Factorization of Tensors Model for Dynamic Directed Network Representation,

    Zeng and H. Wu, “A Fast and Inherently Nonnegative Latent Factorization of Tensors Model for Dynamic Directed Network Representation,” in 2024 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Tianjin, China: IEEE, May 2024, pp. 2955–2960

    2024

  4. [12]

    A PID-incorporated Latent Factorization of Tensors Approach to Dynamically Weighted Directed Network Analysis,

    H. Wu, X. Luo, M. Zhou, M. J. Rawa, K. Sedraoui, and A. Albeshri, “A PID-incorporated Latent Factorization of Tensors Approach to Dynamically Weighted Directed Network Analysis,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 533–546, Mar. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Dynamically Weighted Directed Network Link Prediction Using Tensor Ring Decomposition,

    Q. Wang and H. Wu, “Dynamically Weighted Directed Network Link Prediction Using Tensor Ring Decomposition,” in 2024 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Tianjin, China: IEEE, May 2024, pp. 2864–2869

    2024

  6. [14]

    A Fine-Grained Regularization Scheme for Non-negative Latent Factorization of High- Dimensional and Incomplete Tensors,

    H. Wu, Y. Qiao, and X. Luo, “A Fine-Grained Regularization Scheme for Non-negative Latent Factorization of High- Dimensional and Incomplete Tensors,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 3006–3021, Nov. 2024. 6

    2024

  7. [15]

    Adaptively-Accelerated Parallel Stochastic Gradient Descent for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data Representation Learning,

    W. Qin, X. Luo, and M. Zhou, “Adaptively-Accelerated Parallel Stochastic Gradient Descent for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data Representation Learning,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 92–107, Feb. 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Instance-Frequency-Weighted Regularized, Nonnegative and Adaptive Latent Factorization of Tensors for Dynamic QoS Analysis,

    H. Wu and X. Luo, “Instance-Frequency-Weighted Regularized, Nonnegative and Adaptive Latent Factorization of Tensors for Dynamic QoS Analysis,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Chicago, IL, USA: IEEE, Sep. 2021, pp. 560–568

    2021

  9. [17]

    Adjusting Learning Depth in Nonnegative Latent Factorization of Tensors for Accurately Modeling Temporal Patterns in Dynamic QoS Data,

    X. Luo, M. Chen, H. Wu, Z. Liu, H. Yuan, and M. Zhou, “Adjusting Learning Depth in Nonnegative Latent Factorization of Tensors for Accurately Modeling Temporal Patterns in Dynamic QoS Data,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2142–2155, Oct. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Advancing Non-Negative Latent Factorization of Tensors With Diversified Regularization Schemes,

    H. Wu, X. Luo, and M. Zhou, “Advancing Non-Negative Latent Factorization of Tensors With Diversified Regularization Schemes,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1334–1344, May 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Temporal Pattern-Aware QoS Prediction via Biased Non-Negative Latent Factorization of Tensors,

    X. Luo, H. Wu, H. Yuan, and M. Zhou, “Temporal Pattern-Aware QoS Prediction via Biased Non-Negative Latent Factorization of Tensors,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1798–1809, May 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Asynchronous Parallel Fuzzy Stochastic Gradient Descent for High-Dimensional Incomplete Data Representation,

    W. Qin and X. Luo, “Asynchronous Parallel Fuzzy Stochastic Gradient Descent for High-Dimensional Incomplete Data Representation,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 445–459, Feb. 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Latent-Factorization-of-Tensors-Incorporated Battery Cycle Life Prediction,

    M. Chen, L. Tao, J. Lou, and X. Luo, “Latent-Factorization-of-Tensors-Incorporated Battery Cycle Life Prediction,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 633–635, Mar. 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    NeuLFT: A Novel Approach to Nonlinear Canonical Polyadic Decomposition on High- Dimensional Incomplete Tensors,

    X. Luo, H. Wu, and Z. Li, “NeuLFT: A Novel Approach to Nonlinear Canonical Polyadic Decomposition on High- Dimensional Incomplete Tensors,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., pp. 1–1, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    An Adaptively Bias-Extended Non-Negative Latent Factorization of Tensors Model for Accurately Representing the Dynamic QoS Data,

    X. Xu, M. Lin, X. Luo, and Z. Xu, “An Adaptively Bias-Extended Non-Negative Latent Factorization of Tensors Model for Accurately Representing the Dynamic QoS Data,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 603–617, Mar. 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Non-Negativity Constrained Missing Data Estimation for High- Dimensional and Sparse Matrices from Industrial Applications,

    X. Luo, M. Zhou, S. Li, L. Hu, and M. Shang, “Non-Negativity Constrained Missing Data Estimation for High- Dimensional and Sparse Matrices from Industrial Applications,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1844–1855, May 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Improved Symmetric and Nonnegative Matrix Factorization Models for Undirected, Sparse and Large-Scaled Networks: A Triple Factorization-Based Approach,

    Y. Song, M. Li, X. Luo, G. Yang, and C. Wang, “Improved Symmetric and Nonnegative Matrix Factorization Models for Undirected, Sparse and Large-Scaled Networks: A Triple Factorization-Based Approach,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 3006–3017, May 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    An Effective Scheme for QoS Estimation via Alternating Direction Method-Based Matrix Factorization,

    X. Luo, M. Zhou, Z. Wang, Y. Xia, and Q. Zhu, “An Effective Scheme for QoS Estimation via Alternating Direction Method-Based Matrix Factorization,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 503–518, Jul. 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    A High-Order Proximity-Incorporated Nonnegative Matrix Factorization-Based Community Detector,

    Z. Liu, Y. Yi, and X. Luo, “A High-Order Proximity-Incorporated Nonnegative Matrix Factorization-Based Community Detector,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 700–714, Jun. 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Highly-Accurate Community Detection via Pointwise Mutual Information-Incorporated Symmetric Non-Negative Matrix Factorization,

    X. Luo, Z. Liu, M. Shang, J. Lou, and M. Zhou, “Highly-Accurate Community Detection via Pointwise Mutual Information-Incorporated Symmetric Non-Negative Matrix Factorization,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 463–476, Jan. 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Symmetry and Graph Bi-Regularized Non-Negative Matrix Factorization for Precise Community Detection,

    Z. Liu, X. Luo, and M. Zhou, “Symmetry and Graph Bi-Regularized Non-Negative Matrix Factorization for Precise Community Detection,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1406–1420, Apr. 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    An Alternating-Direction-Method of Multipliers-Incorporated Approach to Symmetric Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis,

    X. Luo, Y. Zhong, Z. Wang, and M. Li, “An Alternating-Direction-Method of Multipliers-Incorporated Approach to Symmetric Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 4826– 4840, Aug. 2023. 7

    2023

  23. [31]

    Symmetric Nonnegative Matrix Factorization-Based Community Detection Models and Their Convergence Analysis,

    X. Luo, Z. Liu, L. Jin, Y. Zhou, and M. Zhou, “Symmetric Nonnegative Matrix Factorization-Based Community Detection Models and Their Convergence Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1203– 1215, Mar. 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Symmetry and Nonnegativity-Constrained Matrix Factorization for Community Detection,

    Z. Liu, G. Yuan, and X. Luo, “Symmetry and Nonnegativity-Constrained Matrix Factorization for Community Detection,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1691–1693, Sep. 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Algorithms of Unconstrained Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis for Recommender Systems,

    X. Luo, M. Zhou, S. Li, D. Wu, Z. Liu, and M. Shang, “Algorithms of Unconstrained Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis for Recommender Systems,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 227–240, Mar. 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Alternating-Direction-Method of Multipliers-Based Adaptive Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis,

    Y. Zhong, K. Liu, S. Gao, and X. Luo, “Alternating-Direction-Method of Multipliers-Based Adaptive Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3544–3558, Oct. 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Fast and Accurate Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis of High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems,

    X. Luo, Y. Zhou, Z. Liu, and M. Zhou, “Fast and Accurate Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis of High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3897–3911, Apr. 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Learning Error Refinement in Stochastic Gradient Descent-Based Latent Factor Analysis via Diversified PID Controllers,

    J. Li, Y. Yuan, and X. Luo, “Learning Error Refinement in Stochastic Gradient Descent-Based Latent Factor Analysis via Diversified PID Controllers,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell., pp. 1–16, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    An Instance-Frequency-Weighted Regularization Scheme for Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis on High-Dimensional and Sparse Data,

    X. Luo, Z. Wang, and M. Shang, “An Instance-Frequency-Weighted Regularization Scheme for Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis on High-Dimensional and Sparse Data,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 3522– 3532, Jun. 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Assimilating Second-Order Information for Building Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis-Based Recommenders,

    W. Li, Q. He, X. Luo, and Z. Wang, “Assimilating Second-Order Information for Building Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis-Based Recommenders,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 485–497, Jan. 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    A Deep Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems,

    D. Wu, X. Luo, M. Shang, Y. He, G. Wang, and M. Zhou, “A Deep Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 4285–4296, Jul. 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    A Double-Space and Double-Norm Ensembled Latent Factor Model for Highly Accurate Web Service QoS Prediction,

    D. Wu, P. Zhang, Y. He, and X. Luo, “A Double-Space and Double-Norm Ensembled Latent Factor Model for Highly Accurate Web Service QoS Prediction,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 802–814, Mar. 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Large-scale and Scalable Latent Factor Analysis via Distributed Alternative Stochastic Gradient Descent for Recommender Systems,

    X. Shi, Q. He, X. Luo, Y. Bai, and M. Shang, “Large-scale and Scalable Latent Factor Analysis via Distributed Alternative Stochastic Gradient Descent for Recommender Systems,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, pp. 1–1, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Generalized Nesterov’s Acceleration-Incorporated, Non-Negative and Adaptive Latent Factor Analysis,

    X. Luo, Y. Zhou, Z. Liu, L. Hu, and M. Zhou, “Generalized Nesterov’s Acceleration-Incorporated, Non-Negative and Adaptive Latent Factor Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 2809–2823, Sep. 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Hierarchical Particle Swarm Optimization-incorporated Latent Factor Analysis for Large-Scale Incomplete Matrices,

    J. Chen, X. Luo, and M. Zhou, “Hierarchical Particle Swarm Optimization-incorporated Latent Factor Analysis for Large-Scale Incomplete Matrices,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, pp. 1–1, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Latent Factor Analysis Model With Temporal Regularized Constraint for Road Traffic Data Imputation,

    H. Yang, M. Lin, H. Chen, X. Luo, and Z. Xu, “Latent Factor Analysis Model With Temporal Regularized Constraint for Road Traffic Data Imputation,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 724–741, Jan. 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Robust Latent Factor Analysis for Precise Representation of High-Dimensional and Sparse Data,

    D. Wu and X. Luo, “Robust Latent Factor Analysis for Precise Representation of High-Dimensional and Sparse Data,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 796–805, Apr. 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis-Incorporated and Feature-Weighted Fuzzy Double $c$-Means Clustering for Incomplete Data,

    Y. Song, M. Li, Z. Zhu, G. Yang, and X. Luo, “Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis-Incorporated and Feature-Weighted Fuzzy Double $c$-Means Clustering for Incomplete Data,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 4165–4176, Oct. 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Position-Transitional Particle Swarm Optimization-Incorporated Latent Factor Analysis,

    X. Luo, Y. Yuan, S. Chen, N. Zeng, and Z. Wang, “Position-Transitional Particle Swarm Optimization-Incorporated Latent Factor Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 3958–3970, Aug. 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Proximal Alternating-Direction-Method-of-Multipliers-Incorporated Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis,

    F. Bi, X. Luo, B. Shen, H. Dong, and Z. Wang, “Proximal Alternating-Direction-Method-of-Multipliers-Incorporated Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1388–1406, Jun. 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Pseudo Gradient-Adjusted Particle Swarm Optimization for Accurate Adaptive Latent Factor Analysis,

    X. Luo, J. Chen, Y. Yuan, and Z. Wang, “Pseudo Gradient-Adjusted Particle Swarm Optimization for Accurate Adaptive Latent Factor Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 2213–2226, Apr. 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    A Multilayered-and-Randomized Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices,

    Y. Yuan, Q. He, X. Luo, and M. Shang, “A Multilayered-and-Randomized Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 784–794, Jun. 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Parallel Adaptive Stochastic Gradient Descent Algorithms for Latent Factor Analysis of High-Dimensional and Incomplete Industrial Data,

    W. Qin, X. Luo, S. Li, and M. Zhou, “Parallel Adaptive Stochastic Gradient Descent Algorithms for Latent Factor Analysis of High-Dimensional and Incomplete Industrial Data,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2716–2729, Jul. 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    A Data-Characteristic-Aware Latent Factor Model for Web Services QoS Prediction,

    D. Wu, X. Luo, M. Shang, Y. He, G. Wang, and X. Wu, “A Data-Characteristic-Aware Latent Factor Model for Web Services QoS Prediction,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., pp. 1–1, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    A Fast Non-Negative Latent Factor Model Based on Generalized Momentum Method,

    X. Luo, Z. Liu, S. Li, M. Shang, and Z. Wang, “A Fast Non-Negative Latent Factor Model Based on Generalized Momentum Method,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 610–620, Jan. 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    A Generalized Nesterov-Accelerated Second-Order Latent Factor Model for High- Dimensional and Incomplete Data,

    W. Li, R. Wang, and X. Luo, “A Generalized Nesterov-Accelerated Second-Order Latent Factor Model for High- Dimensional and Incomplete Data,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1518–1532, Jan. 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    An Adaptive Divergence-Based Non-Negative Latent Factor Model,

    Y. Yuan, R. Wang, G. Yuan, and L. Xin, “An Adaptive Divergence-Based Non-Negative Latent Factor Model,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 6475–6487, Oct. 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    A Nonnegative Latent Factor Model for Large-Scale Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems via Alternating Direction Method,

    X. Luo, M. Zhou, S. Li, Z. You, Y. Xia, and Q. Zhu, “A Nonnegative Latent Factor Model for Large-Scale Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems via Alternating Direction Method,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 579–592, Mar. 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    A Posterior-Neighborhood-Regularized Latent Factor Model for Highly Accurate Web Service QoS Prediction,

    D. Wu, Q. He, X. Luo, M. Shang, Y. He, and G. Wang, “A Posterior-Neighborhood-Regularized Latent Factor Model for Highly Accurate Web Service QoS Prediction,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 793–805, Mar. 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    A Second-Order Symmetric Non-Negative Latent Factor Model for Undirected Weighted Network Representation,

    W. Li, R. Wang, X. Luo, and M. Zhou, “A Second-Order Symmetric Non-Negative Latent Factor Model for Undirected Weighted Network Representation,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 606–618, Mar. 2023. 8

    2023

  51. [59]

    A Prediction-Sampling-Based Multilayer-Structured Latent Factor Model for Accurate Representation to High-Dimensional and Sparse Data,

    D. Wu, X. Luo, Y. He, and M. Zhou, “A Prediction-Sampling-Based Multilayer-Structured Latent Factor Model for Accurate Representation to High-Dimensional and Sparse Data,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 3845–3858, Mar. 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Momentum-Accelerated and Biased Unconstrained Non-Negative Latent Factor Model for Handling High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data,

    M. Lin, H. Yang, X. Xu, L. Lin, Z. Xu, and X. Luo, “Momentum-Accelerated and Biased Unconstrained Non-Negative Latent Factor Model for Handling High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data,” ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1–25, Apr. 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    An Inherently Nonnegative Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices from Industrial Applications,

    X. Luo, M. Zhou, S. Li, and M. Shang, “An Inherently Nonnegative Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices from Industrial Applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2011–2022, May 2018

    2011

  54. [62]

    An L1 -and- L2 -Norm-Oriented Latent Factor Model for Recommender Systems,

    D. Wu, M. Shang, X. Luo, and Z. Wang, “An L1 -and- L2 -Norm-Oriented Latent Factor Model for Recommender Systems,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 5775–5788, Oct. 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Convergence Analysis of Single Latent Factor-Dependent, Nonnegative, and Multiplicative Update-Based Nonnegative Latent Factor Models,

    Z. Liu, X. Luo, and Z. Wang, “Convergence Analysis of Single Latent Factor-Dependent, Nonnegative, and Multiplicative Update-Based Nonnegative Latent Factor Models,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1737–1749, Apr. 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    Generating Highly Accurate Predictions for Missing QoS Data via Aggregating Nonnegative Latent Factor Models,

    X. Luo, M. Zhou, Y. Xia, Q. Zhu, A. C. Ammari, and A. Alabdulwahab, “Generating Highly Accurate Predictions for Missing QoS Data via Aggregating Nonnegative Latent Factor Models,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 524–537, Mar. 2016

    2016

  57. [65]

    Randomized latent factor model for high-dimensional and sparse matrices from industrial applications,

    M. Shang, X. Luo, Z. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Yuan, and M. Zhou, “Randomized latent factor model for high-dimensional and sparse matrices from industrial applications,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 131–141, Jan. 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Momentum-Incorporated Symmetric Non-Negative Latent Factor Models,

    Y. Zhong, L. Jin, M. Shang, and X. Luo, “Momentum-Incorporated Symmetric Non-Negative Latent Factor Models,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1096–1106, Aug. 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Incorporation of Efficient Second-Order Solvers Into Latent Factor Models for Accurate Prediction of Missing QoS Data,

    X. Luo et al., “Incorporation of Efficient Second-Order Solvers Into Latent Factor Models for Accurate Prediction of Missing QoS Data,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1216–1228, Apr. 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Non-Negative Latent Factor Model Based on β-Divergence for Recommender Systems,

    L. Xin, Y. Yuan, M. Zhou, Z. Liu, and M. Shang, “Non-Negative Latent Factor Model Based on β-Divergence for Recommender Systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern, Syst., vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 4612–4623, Aug. 2021

    2021

  61. [69]

    Robust Low-Rank Latent Feature Analysis for Spatiotemporal Signal Recovery,

    D. Wu, Z. Li, Z. Yu, Y. He, and X. Luo, “Robust Low-Rank Latent Feature Analysis for Spatiotemporal Signal Recovery,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 2829–2842, Feb. 2025

    2025

  62. [70]

    A Fast Deep AutoEncoder for high-dimensional and sparse matrices in recommender systems,

    J. Jiang, W. Li, A. Dong, Q. Gou, and X. Luo, “A Fast Deep AutoEncoder for high-dimensional and sparse matrices in recommender systems,” Neurocomputing, vol. 412, pp. 381–391, Oct. 2020

    2020

  63. [71]

    Symmetric and Nonnegative Latent Factor Models for Undirected, High- Dimensional, and Sparse Networks in Industrial Applications,

    X. Luo, J. Sun, Z. Wang, S. Li, and M. Shang, “Symmetric and Nonnegative Latent Factor Models for Undirected, High- Dimensional, and Sparse Networks in Industrial Applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 3098–3107

  64. [72]

    MMLF: Multi-Metric Latent Feature Analysis for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data,

    D. Wu, P. Zhang, Y. He, and X. Luo, “MMLF: Multi-Metric Latent Feature Analysis for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 575–588, Mar. 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    A Fast Nonnegative Autoencoder-Based Approach to Latent Feature Analysis on High- Dimensional and Incomplete Data,

    F. Bi, T. He, and X. Luo, “A Fast Nonnegative Autoencoder-Based Approach to Latent Feature Analysis on High- Dimensional and Incomplete Data,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 733–746, May 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Autoencoder-Embedded Iterated Local Search for Energy-Minimized Task Schedules of Human–Cyber–Physical Systems,

    C. Lin, Z. Cao, and M. Zhou, “Autoencoder-Embedded Iterated Local Search for Energy-Minimized Task Schedules of Human–Cyber–Physical Systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng., vol. 22, pp. 512–522, 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    Two-Stream Graph Convolutional Network-Incorporated Latent Feature Analysis,

    F. Bi, T. He, Y. Xie, and X. Luo, “Two-Stream Graph Convolutional Network-Incorporated Latent Feature Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 3027–3042, Jul. 2023. 9

    2023

  68. [76]

    An Outlier-Resilient Autoencoder for Representing High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data,

    D. Wu, Y. Hu, K. Liu, J. Li, X. Wang, S. Deng, N. Zheng and X. Luo, “An Outlier-Resilient Autoencoder for Representing High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell., pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Neural Collaborative Filtering,

    X. He, L. Liao, H. Zhang, L. Nie, X. Hu, and T.-S. Chua, “Neural Collaborative Filtering,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, Perth Australia: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Apr. 2017, pp. 173–182

    2017

  70. [78]

    Predicting Protein-Protein Interactions Using Sequence and Network Information via Variational Graph Autoencoder,

    X. Luo, L. Wang, P. Hu, and L. Hu, “Predicting Protein-Protein Interactions Using Sequence and Network Information via Variational Graph Autoencoder,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. and Bioinf., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 3182–3194, Sep. 2023

    2023

  71. [79]

    SDGNN: Symmetry-Preserving Dual-Stream Graph Neural Networks,

    J. Chen, Y. Yuan, and X. Luo, “SDGNN: Symmetry-Preserving Dual-Stream Graph Neural Networks,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1717–1719, Jul. 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendation,

    X. He, K. Deng, X. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, and M. Wang, “LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Virtual Event China: AC...

    2020

  73. [81]

    GCN-MF: Disease-Gene Association Identification By Graph Convolutional Networks and Matrix Factorization,

    P. Han, P. Yang, P. Zhao, S. Shang, Y. Liu, J. Zhou, X. Gao and P. Kalnis, “GCN-MF: Disease-Gene Association Identification By Graph Convolutional Networks and Matrix Factorization,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data M...

    2019

  74. [82]

    A Two-Stream Light Graph Convolution Network-based Latent Factor Model for Accurate Cloud Service QoS Estimation,

    F. Bi, T. He, and X. Luo, “A Two-Stream Light Graph Convolution Network-based Latent Factor Model for Accurate Cloud Service QoS Estimation,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), Orlando, FL, USA: IEEE, Nov. 2022, pp. 855–860

    2022

  75. [83]

    A Node-Collaboration-Informed Graph Convolutional Network for Highly Accurate Representation to Undirected Weighted Graph,

    Y. Yuan, Y. Wang, and X. Luo, “A Node-Collaboration-Informed Graph Convolutional Network for Highly Accurate Representation to Undirected Weighted Graph,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 11507– 11519, Jun. 2025

    2025

  76. [84]

    Graph Linear Convolution Pooling for Learning in Incomplete High-Dimensional Data,

    F. Bi, T. He, Y.-S. Ong, and X. Luo, “Graph Linear Convolution Pooling for Learning in Incomplete High-Dimensional Data,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1838–1852, Apr. 2025

    2025

  77. [86]

    Aut o-Encoding Variational Bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Aut o-Encoding Variational Bayes,” in Proceedings of the 2th International Confere nce on Learning Representations. 2014

    2014

  78. [87]

    Linear, or Non -Linear, That is the Question!,

    T. Kong , T. Kim, J. Jeon, J . Choi, Y. Lee, N. Park and S. Kim, “Linear, or Non -Linear, That is the Question!,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Internationa l Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Virtual E vent AZ USA: ACM, Feb. 2022, pp. 517–525

    2022

  79. [88]

    Graph Trend Filtering Networks for Recommendation,

    W. Fan, X. Liu, W. Jin, X. Zhao, J. Tang, and Q. Li, “Graph Trend Filtering Networks for Recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Dev elopment in Information Retrieval, Madrid Spain: ACM, Jul. 2022, pp. 112–121

    2022

  80. [2014]

    We use VAE to comp lement PL M missing data by firs t spl itting the PLM data into vec tors, and then inputting t he vectors sequentially to VAE for imputation

    VAE combines NN and Bayesian inference for learning latent representations of data and generating new samples. We use VAE to comp lement PL M missing data by firs t spl itting the PLM data into vec tors, and then inputting t he vectors sequentially to VAE for imputation. The p...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.