Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

PARK: Personalized academic retrieval with knowledge-graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Knowledge-graph embeddings of citation networks improve personalized academic search in three of four domains tested.

desk verdict Clean two-stage personalization pipeline with a real leakage question that code inspection must resolve. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13910 v1 pith:S2B6DU3W submitted 2025-07-18 cs.IR

Pranav Kasela , Gabriella Pasi , Raffaele Perego This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords PersonalizedacademicsearchKnowledgegraphembeddingsTransEHCitationUsermodelingDenseretrievalNeuralinformation
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 aims to show that user models built from knowledge-graph embeddings of an academic citation graph can substantially improve personalized academic search, going beyond what lexical, dense, and simpler user-model baselines achieve. The proposed system, PARK, first trains a bi-encoder neural retriever and then embeds a citation-derived knowledge graph into the same vector space using TransE or TransH, with paper embeddings pinned to the retriever's. At query time, the query author's embedding is compared with each candidate paper's authors, and this user-similarity score is fused with BM25 and dense scores. On four domain-specific benchmarks, the method achieves state-of-the-art MAP@100 in three domains with up to 10% relative improvement over the second-best baseline. The central interest is that structural citation relationships can be converted into a continuously updated user profile without needing search-session logs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the academic knowledge graph built from the citation graph, with four entity types (user, document, venue, affiliation) and five relations (Wrote, Cited, In Venue, Affiliated, Co-author). It is embedded with TransE or TransH into the same space as the neural retriever's document embeddings, holding document embeddings fixed. The user embedding of the query author is then compared with embeddings of candidate paper authors to produce a user similarity score; the final ranking is a convex combination of BM25, dense similarity, and user similarity. The Cited relation, which connects a user to every document cited by their papers, is the mechanism that propagates a researcher's reading and reference habits into their profile.

What would settle it

Train and evaluate PARK-H twice: once with the knowledge graph restricted to pre-cutoff documents and once with test-period documents, and their citation edges, included; then compare MAP@100 on the same test queries. If the restricted-graph run loses most of the reported improvement, the gains come from encoding the answer key into the user profile rather than from genuine personalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that PARK-E and PARK-H, user models derived from translational knowledge-graph embeddings of the academic citation graph, significantly improve personalized academic search effectiveness. Aligning the knowledge-graph embedding space with the dense retriever's document embeddings, while keeping document embeddings fixed, places users and documents in a shared semantic space where a user-author cosine similarity becomes a meaningful relevance signal. Experiments across four domains show PARK-H improves MAP@100 over the second-best method by 9% in Political Science and Physics and 10% in Psychology, with statistically significant gains; in Computer Science the popularity-based POP baseline remains slightly ahead. The ablations indicate that user-node relations (Wrote, Cited, Co-author) drive most of the gain, affiliation adds institutional context, and venue contributes little.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the knowledge graph being built from documents published before the evaluation cutoff, so that the Cited relation does not already include the references of the test-period query papers, which are exactly the relevance labels used for scoring.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, academic search systems can build effective user profiles from the citation graph alone, without needing search-session logs or explicit user feedback.
  • The two-stage training means any dense retriever can be paired with a knowledge-graph-based user model by simply fixing its document embeddings, avoiding joint retraining.
  • The approach transfers across domains (Computer Science, Physics, Political Science, Psychology), suggesting the citation-structure signal is general rather than domain-specific.
  • The Computer Science exception indicates that in fields where citation counts are highly informative, popularity features may dominate; combining knowledge-graph user models with popularity features is a natural next step.
  • The ablation result, that affiliation helps while venue does not, gives a concrete recipe for which graph nodes to include when building such user models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported gains may partly reflect the benchmark's construction, since relevance labels are the references of the query paper and the Cited relation is exactly that signal; a cleaner test would hold out the query paper itself from the graph.
  • The method effectively performs a form of collaborative filtering where transitive citation proximity replaces rating similarity; one could test whether simpler graph-walk or PageRank-style user scores match the knowledge-graph embeddings' performance.
  • Because document nodes are frozen, the knowledge-graph embedding quality depends entirely on the language model's document representations; relaxing that constraint might improve or distort user embeddings, an easily testable variant.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PARK, a personalized academic search pipeline in which a BM25 first stage and a MiniLM dense retriever are augmented by a user model built from knowledge-graph embeddings of the academic citation graph. The citation graph is converted into a knowledge graph with user, document, venue, and affiliation nodes and relations such as Wrote, Cited, In Venue, Affiliated, and Co-author; TransE (PARK-E) and TransH (PARK-H) are trained to embed this graph into the same space as the dense retriever, with document embeddings fixed. Documents are finally ranked by a convex combination of BM25, dense similarity, and user-similarity scores. Experiments on a four-domain benchmark (Computer Science, Political Science, Psychology, Physics) claim state-of-the-art MAP@100 in three domains, with about 9--10% relative improvement over the second-best model, plus an ablation on node types.

Significance. If the results are valid, PARK offers a practical integration of knowledge-graph embeddings with neural retrieval for personalized academic search, and the public code and benchmark would support reproducibility. The two-stage design, where document embeddings are shared between the dense retriever and the KG embedding model, is a sensible way to combine lexical, semantic, and structural signals, and the ablation provides useful evidence about which KG nodes contribute. However, the central claim is currently threatened by an unstated temporal split in the knowledge-graph construction, and several experimental details are missing; the significance of the claimed gains cannot be assessed until that issue is resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §4.1] The paper does not state whether the knowledge graph used for user embeddings is restricted to documents published before the chronological cutoff. This is load-bearing because of the Cited relation: for an author u who authored a test-period query paper p, the edge (u, Cited, d) exists for every document d cited by p, and those d are exactly the relevance labels in the benchmark (the references of the query paper). Since document-node embeddings are fixed to the MiniLM encoder, such edges would pull the user embedding directly toward relevant documents, making the user-similarity score trivially predictive and the Table 1 gains a leakage artifact. The sentence in §4.1 about preventing data leakage refers only to the training sets of the retrieval model; the KG construction is not described as respecting the same split. The authors must specify precisely which papers, authors, and citation edges are included in the KG, and ideally provide a check (e.g., the number of test-period query papers excluded) or a controlled experiment where the KG is built only from pre-cutoff documents.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (1)] The combination weights λ1, λ2, and λ3 are said to be optimized on the validation set, but their values are never reported. Since all baselines are combined with the same convex weighting, the final ranking can be sensitive to these weights, and the reader cannot judge whether the reported margins are due to the user model or to weight tuning. Report the selected λ values for each domain and model, or show the sensitivity of MAP@100 to these weights.
  3. [§4.3, Table 1] The claim of statistical significance is not supported by any description of the test used. The asterisk is defined as 'a statistically significant difference over the second-best-performing model,' but the paper does not state whether a paired test (e.g., paired t-test or Wilcoxon) was used, over how many queries, or how multiple comparisons were handled. This is necessary both for the headline improvements and for the Computer Science case, where PARK-H is not marked as significant relative to the second-best model. Please specify the significance test, the number of query-user pairs, and the threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] The user similarity score is described only as measuring similarity between the query writer and 'the authors of the documents being scored'; it is not clear whether the score is a maximum over the document's authors, a mean, or something else. A precise formula is needed to reproduce the method.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (1)] In the triplet margin loss equation, the first norm uses a subscript p while the second uses subscript 2; this appears to be a typo and should be consistently ||·||₂.
  3. [§4.2] The PageRank baseline is applied to a citation graph, but the paper does not specify whether this graph is the full collection or only the training-period documents. If the test-period citations are included, PageRank could also be influenced by the same leakage path, weakening its comparability as a baseline.
  4. [Table 1] In the Computer Science column, PARK-H has 0.230 MAP@100 while POP has 0.238; the text states PARK-H 'falls short by 3%' but the relative difference is about 3.4%, and the direction of the comparison should be stated more precisely in the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Unless the knowledge graph excludes post-cutoff documents, PARK's Cited relation encodes the benchmark's relevance labels by construction, making the Table 1 gains a label-injection artifact.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 (Cited relation and fixed document embeddings), Section 4.1 (relevance definition and chronological split), Section 4.2 (final score equation).]
    "Cited (user cited −−−→ document): Connects a user to all documents cited by any of their authored works. ... For both the training and validation sets, as in [3], relevant documents for each query are identified as those cited by the paper and those appearing in the top 100 results from a BM25 search, where the query is the exact paper’s title. To create a realistic evaluation scenario and prevent data leakage, the dataset is split chronologically. The training sets consist of documents published before specific cutoff dates ..."

    For a test query generated from paper p published after the cutoff, the relevance labels are exactly the documents p cites (Section 4.1). The user model's Cited relation attaches to p's author u exactly those cited documents (Section 3.2). Section 4.1's chronological split is stated only for the training sets of the retrieval model; no sentence restricts the knowledge graph or its Cited edges to pre-cutoff documents. If the KG includes p, then every relevance label is an input edge incident to u. Because Section 3.2 fixes document embeddings to the MiniLM encoder, the learned user embedding is pulled toward the relevant documents, and the user-similarity term in the final score (Section 4.2) boosts precisely those documents.

full rationale

The central claim is that knowledge-graph user embeddings improve personalized academic search. The evaluation defines relevance as the citations of the query paper, and the PARK user model's Cited relation is defined as the citations of the user's authored papers; for a test query paper these two sets coincide by construction unless the KG is temporally restricted. The paper never states such a restriction for the KG, even though it does describe a chronological split for the retrieval model's training sets. This makes the load-bearing prediction definitionally dependent on its input. The self-citation to the benchmark [3] (Bassani, Kasela, Raganato, Pasi) is not itself an independent problem — public benchmark resources are legitimate — but it is the route by which the label definition enters, and the presence of overlapping authors does not change the fact that the reduction is definitional. The Self Citation baseline shares part of the same signal, so PARK's margin over it does not disprove leakage. A code-level check of the released repository would settle whether the KG excludes post-cutoff documents; the manuscript as written leaves this circularity unresolved. Score 7 reflects one load-bearing, construction-level identity between the user model input and the evaluation labels.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three free parameters (λ weights) that are fit to the validation set, and on two domain assumptions about the embedding algorithms and the closed-world nature of citation data. The most critical assumption is that the KG respects the temporal split, which is never explicitly stated and determines whether the evaluation is valid or circular.

free parameters (1)
  • λ1, λ2, λ3 (score combination weights) = not reported
    The convex combination of BM25, MiniLM, and user similarity is tuned on validation sets for all models (Section 4.2); the specific values are not disclosed.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math TransE and TransH translational embedding algorithms behave as described in the cited literature and preserve relational structure when trained on the academic knowledge graph.
    The user model assumes these algorithms produce meaningful embeddings for entities and relations (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Closed World Assumption holds for the citation graph: all relevant facts are captured by the graph, and missing edges are treated as false.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 to justify the embedding training; the paper argues curated academic citation data is complete enough.
  • ad hoc to paper The knowledge graph is constructed and embedded without using test-period documents, i.e., the temporal split is respected in KG construction.
    This is the load-bearing assumption for the validity of the evaluation. The paper never explicitly states the KG is built only from the training split; if it is not, the results reflect leakage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PARK: Personalized academic retrieval with knowledge-graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2B6DU3W

@misc{pith2026250713910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PARK: Personalized academic retrieval with knowledge-graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2B6DU3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13910}
}
read the original abstract

Academic Search is a search task aimed to manage and retrieve scientific documents like journal articles and conference papers. Personalization in this context meets individual researchers' needs by leveraging, through user profiles, the user related information (e.g. documents authored by a researcher), to improve search effectiveness and to reduce the information overload. While citation graphs are a valuable means to support the outcome of recommender systems, their use in personalized academic search (with, e.g. nodes as papers and edges as citations) is still under-explored. Existing personalized models for academic search often struggle to fully capture users' academic interests. To address this, we propose a two-step approach: first, training a neural language model for retrieval, then converting the academic graph into a knowledge graph and embedding it into a shared semantic space with the language model using translational embedding techniques. This allows user models to capture both explicit relationships and hidden structures in citation graphs and paper content. We evaluate our approach in four academic search domains, outperforming traditional graph-based and personalized models in three out of four, with up to a 10\% improvement in MAP@100 over the second-best model. This highlights the potential of knowledge graph-based user models to enhance retrieval effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the PARK retrieval pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the process to obtain user embeddings from the citation Graph. The first step converts the Citation Graph to an Academic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z. Ali, G. Qi, P. Kefalas, W. A. Abro, B. Ali, A graph-based taxonomy of citation recommendation models, Artificial Intelli- gence Review 53 (2020) 5217–5260

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    S. Lu, Z. Dou, C. Xiong, X. Wang, J.-R. Wen, Knowledge en- hanced personalized search, in: Proceedings of the 43rd In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Devel- opment in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’20, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2020, p. 709–718. doi:10.1145/3397271.3401089. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/339727...

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Bassani, P

    E. Bassani, P. Kasela, A. Raganato, G. Pasi, A multi-domain benchmark for personalized search evaluation, in: Proceed- ings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM ’22, Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022, p. 3822–3827. doi:10.1145/3511808.3557536

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Mitra, N

    B. Mitra, N. Craswell, An introduction to neural information retrieval, Foundations and Trendsin Information Retrieval 13 (1) (2018) 1–126. doi:10.1561/1500000061. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1500000061

    doi:10.1561/1500000061 2018

  5. [5]

    Reimers, I

    N. Reimers, I. Gurevych, Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks, in: Proceedings of the 2019 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Lan- guage Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, Association for Computational Linguis- ...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Huang, X

    P.-S. Huang, X. He, J. Gao, L. Deng, A. Acero, L. Heck, Learning deep structured semantic models for web search using clickthrough data, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowl- edge Management, CIKM ’13, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2013, p. 2333–2338. doi:10.1145/2505515.2505665. URL ht...

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Balntas, E

    V . Balntas, E. Riba, D. Ponsa, K. Mikolajczyk, Learning local feature descriptors with triplets and shallow convolutional neu- ral networks., in: Bmvc, V ol. 1, 2016, p. 3

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Karpukhin, B

    V . Karpukhin, B. Oguz, S. Min, P. Lewis, L. Wu, S. Edunov, D. Chen, W.-t. Yih, Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering, in: B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y . He, Y . Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2020, pp. 6769–6781....

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    J. Zhan, J. Mao, Y . Liu, M. Zhang, S. Ma, Repbert: Contextu- alized text embeddings for first-stage retrieval (2020). arXiv: 2006.15498. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15498

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B. Tan, X. Shen, C. Zhai, Mining long-term search history to improve search accuracy, in: T. Eliassi-Rad, L. H. Ungar, M. Craven, D. Gunopulos (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining, Philadelphia, PA, USA...

    2006

  3. [11]

    A. Sieg, B. Mobasher, R. D. Burke, Web search personalization with ontological user profiles, in: M. J. Silva, A. H. F. Laender, R. A. Baeza-Yates, D. L. McGuinness, B. Olstad, Ø. H. Olsen, A. O. Falc˜ao (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Confer- ence on Information and ...

    2007

  4. [12]

    M. J. Carman, F. Crestani, M. Harvey, M. Baillie, Towards query log based personalization using topic models, in: J. Huang, N. Koudas, G. J. F. Jones, X. Wu, K. Collins-Thompson, A. An (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Informa- tion and Knowledge Management, CI...

    2010

  5. [13]

    D. A. Sontag, K. Collins-Thompson, P. N. Bennett, R. W. White, S. T. Dumais, B. Billerbeck, Probabilistic models for personalizing web search, in: E. Adar, J. Teevan, E. Agichtein, Y . Maarek (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Con- ference on Web Search and Web Dat...

    2012

  6. [14]

    Bendersky, X

    M. Bendersky, X. Wang, D. Metzler, M. Najork, Learning from user interactions in personal search via attribute parameteriza- tion, in: WSDM ’17: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Interna- tional Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 2017, pp. 57–66. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Z. Qin, Z. Li, M. Bendersky, D. Metzler, Matching cross net- work for learning to rank in personal search, in: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, 2020, pp. 1218–1228. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380046

    2020

  8. [16]

    Zamani, M

    H. Zamani, M. Bendersky, X. Wang, M. Zhang, Situational con- text for ranking in personal search, in: WWW ’17: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2017, pp. 1521–1530. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052648

    2017

  9. [17]

    K. Bi, P. Metrikov, C. Li, B. Byun, Leveraging user behavior history for personalized email search, in: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2021, 2021, pp. 3526–3537. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3450110

    2021

  10. [18]

    X. Wang, M. Bendersky, D. Metzler, M. Najork, Learning to rank with selection bias in personal search, in: SIGIR ’16: Pro- ceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2016, pp. 115–124. URL https://doi.org/10.11...

    2016

  11. [19]

    Teevan, S

    J. Teevan, S. T. Dumais, E. Horvitz, Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities, in: SIGIR ’05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR con- ference on Research and development in information retrieval, 2005, pp. 449–456. URL https:/...

    2005

  12. [20]

    F. Cai, S. Liang, M. de Rijke, Personalized document re-ranking based on bayesian probabilistic matrix factorization, in: SIGIR ’14: Proceedings of the 37th International ACM SIGIR Con- ference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2014, pp. 915–918. URL https:...

    2014

  13. [21]

    Bengio, A

    Y . Bengio, A. C. Courville, P. Vincent, Representation learn- ing: A review and new perspectives, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35 (8) (2013) 1798–1828. doi:10.1109/TPAMI. 2013.50. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Q. Ai, D. N. Hill, S. V . N. Vishwanathan, W. B. Croft, A zero attention model for personalized product search, in: W. Zhu, D. Tao, X. Cheng, P. Cui, E. A. Rundensteiner, D. Carmel, Q. He, J. X. Yu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Information a...

    2019

  15. [23]

    Zhong, W

    J. Zhong, W. Guo, H. Gao, B. Long, Personalized query sugges- tions, in: J. Huang, Y . Chang, X. Cheng, J. Kamps, V . Murdock, J. Wen, Y . Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Infor- mation Retrieval, SIGIR 2020,...

    2020

  16. [24]

    J. Yao, Z. Dou, J. Xu, J. Wen, Rlper: A reinforcement learning model for personalized search, in: Y . Huang, I. King, T. Liu, M. van Steen (Eds.), WWW ’20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020, ACM / IW3C2, 2020, pp. 2298–2308. doi:10.1145/3366423.3380294...

    2020

  17. [26]

    Q. Ai, Y . Zhang, K. Bi, X. Chen, W. B. Croft, Learning a hier- archical embedding model for personalized product search, in: SIGIR ’17: Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Re- trieval, 2017, pp. 305–314. URL ht...

    2017

  18. [27]

    K. Bi, Q. Ai, W. B. Croft, A transformer-based embedding model for personalized product search, in: SIGIR ’20: Pro- ceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2020, pp. 2045–2048. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/33...

    2020

  19. [28]

    S. Ge, Z. Dou, Z. Jiang, J.-Y . Nie, J.-R. Wen, Personalizing 10 search results using hierarchical rnn with query-aware attention, in: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’18, Associa- tion for Computing Machinery,...

    2018

  20. [29]

    Z. Su, Z. Dou, Y . Zhu, X. Qin, J.-R. Wen, Modeling intent graph for search result diversification, in: Proceedings of the 44th In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Devel- opment in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’21, Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2021

  21. [30]

    Bassani, P

    E. Bassani, P. Kasela, G. Pasi, Denoising attention for query- aware user modeling, in: K. Duh, H. Gomez, S. Bethard (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, Association for Computational Linguistics, Mexico City, Mexico, 2024, pp. 2368–23...

    2024

  22. [31]

    B. A. Zemede, B. J. Gao, Personalized search with editable profiles, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2017, pp. 4626–4632. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2017. 8258572

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    wook Ahn, P

    J. wook Ahn, P. Brusilovsky, S. Han, Personalized search: Re- considering the value of open user models, in: IUI ’15: Proceed- ings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User In- terfaces, 2015, pp. 364–369. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2678025.2701410

    2015

  24. [34]

    Chien, D

    J. Chien, D. Danks, Fairness vs. personalization: Towards equity in epistemic utility (2023). arXiv:2309.11503. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11503

    2023 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Hogan, E

    A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. D’amato, G. D. Melo, C. Gutierrez, S. Kirrane, J. E. L. Gayo, R. Navigli, S. Neu- maier, A.-C. N. Ngomo, A. Polleres, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. Sequeda, S. Staab, A. Zimmermann, Knowl- edge graphs, ACM Comput. Surv. 54 (4)...

    2021 doi

  26. [36]

    Bordes, N

    A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Duran, J. Weston, O. Yakhnenko, Translating embeddings for modeling multi- relational data, in: C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahra- mani, K. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, V ol. 26, Curran Associa...

    2013

  27. [37]

    Z. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Feng, Z. Chen, Knowledge graph embed- ding by translating on hyperplanes, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 28 (1) (Jun. 2014). doi: 10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8870

    2014 doi

  28. [38]

    Reinanda, E

    R. Reinanda, E. Meij, M. de Rijke, et al., Knowledge graphs: An information retrieval perspective, Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 14 (4) (2020) 289–444

    2020

  29. [39]

    S. E. Robertson, S. Walker, S. Jones, M. Hancock-Beaulieu, M. Gatford, Okapi at TREC-3, in: D. K. Harman (Ed.), Proceedings of The Third Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 1994, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 2-4, 1994, V ol. 500-225 of NIST Special Publication, National I...

    1994

  30. [40]

    Reiter, On closed world data bases, in: B

    R. Reiter, On closed world data bases, in: B. L. Webber, N. J. Nilsson (Eds.), Readings in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 1981, pp. 119–140. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-934613-03-3.50014-3 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B9780934613033500143

    1981 doi

  31. [41]

    Y . Lin, Z. Liu, M. Sun, Y . Liu, X. Zhu, Learning entity and rela- tion embeddings for knowledge graph completion, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 29 (1) (Feb. 2015). doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9491. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/ article/view/9491

    2015 doi

  32. [42]

    Sun, Z.-H

    Z. Sun, Z.-H. Deng, J.-Y . Nie, J. Tang, Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space (2019). arXiv:1902.10197. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10197

    2019 arXiv

  33. [43]

    W. Wang, F. Wei, L. Dong, H. Bao, N. Yang, M. Zhou, Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers, in: H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, H. Lin (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, V ol....

    2020

  34. [44]

    Loshchilov, F

    I. Loshchilov, F. Hutter, Fixing weight decay regularization in adam, CoRR abs/1711.05101 (2017). arXiv:1711.05101. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Jiang, T

    J. Jiang, T. Wu, G. Roumpos, H. Cheng, X. Yi, E. Chi, H. Gana- pathy, N. Jindal, P. Cao, W. Wang, End-to-end deep attentive personalized item retrieval for online content-sharing platforms, in: WWW ’20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020, ACM / IW3C2, 2...

    2020

  36. [46]

    Bahdanau, K

    D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, Y . Bengio, Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate, International Conference on Learning Representations (2015)

    2015

  37. [47]

    Salemi, S

    A. Salemi, S. Mysore, M. Bendersky, H. Zamani, LaMP: When large language models meet personalization, in: L.-W. Ku, A. Martins, V . Srikumar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (V olume 1: Long Papers), Associatio...

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    K. Song, X. Tan, T. Qin, J. Lu, T.-Y . Liu, Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding (2020). arXiv:2004.09297. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.09297

    2020 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Mysore, G

    S. Mysore, G. Dhanania, K. Patil, S. Kallumadi, A. McCallum, H. Zamani, Memory augmented cross-encoders for controllable personalized search (2024). arXiv:2411.02790. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02790

    2024 arXiv

  40. [50]

    L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, T. Winograd, The pagerank cita- tion ranking: Bringing order to the web., Technical Report 1999- 66, Stanford InfoLab, previous number = SIDL-WP-1999-0120 (November 1999). URL http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/

    1999

  41. [51]

    A. N. Langville, C. D. Meyer, A survey of eigenvec- tor methods for web information retrieval, SIAM Review 47 (1) (2005) 135–161. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/ S0036144503424786, doi:10.1137/S0036144503424786. URL https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144503424786

    2005 doi

  42. [52]

    Mitra, F

    B. Mitra, F. Diaz, N. Craswell, Learning to match using local 11 and distributed representations of text for web search, in: Pro- ceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’17, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and...

    2017

  43. [53]

    Kasela, G

    P. Kasela, G. Pasi, R. Perego, Se-pef: a resource for personal- ized expert finding, in: Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in In- formation Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region, SIGIR-AP ’23, Association for Computing Mach...

    2023

  44. [54]

    Kasela, M

    P. Kasela, M. Braga, G. Pasi, R. Perego, Se-pqa: Personal- ized community question answering, in: Companion Proceed- ings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, WWW ’24, Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2024, p. 1095–1098. doi:10.1145/3589335.3651445. URL ht...

    2024

  45. [442]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2124295.2124348

    doi:10.1145/2124295.2124348. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2124295.2124348

  46. [534]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1321440.1321515

    doi:10.1145/1321440.1321515. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1321440.1321515

  47. [1852]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1871437.1871745

    doi:10.1145/1871437.1871745. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1871437.1871745

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.