Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 10 cited by

Knowledge Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for LLM-based Recommendation

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that retrieving structured knowledge subgraphs from an item knowledge graph and feeding them to a frozen LLM as soft prompts can sharply improve recommendation accuracy, efficiency, and hallucination rates compared to…

desk verdict K-RagRec reports large, consistent gains from grounding frozen LLM recommenders in KG subgraphs via soft prompts; the main claim is credible, but retrieval quality itself is never isolated, and missing significance tests make the magnitude uncertain. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02226 v2 pith:7YTJ56JA submitted 2025-01-04 cs.IR

Shijie Wang , Wenqi Fan , Yue Feng , Shanru Lin , Xinyu Ma , Shuaiqiang Wang , Dawei Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords knowledgegraphretrievalretrieval-augmentedgenerationLLM-basedrecommendationsoftprompttuningneuralnetworkshallucinationreductionzero-shottransferpopularity-aware
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 argues that augmenting an LLM-based recommender by retrieving structured knowledge subgraphs from an item knowledge graph works better than pasting retrieved text into the prompt. The proposed pipeline, K-RagRec, indexes multi-hop neighborhoods of candidate items with a GNN, retrieves the most similar subgraphs to the item using a pre-trained language model, re-ranks them against the user's prompt, and injects them as soft prompts through a GNN encoder and projector. Across MovieLens-1M, MovieLens-20M, and Amazon Book, with LLaMA-2-7B, LLaMA-3-8B, and QWEN2-7B as frozen backbones, it reports large accuracy gains over text-based and graph-token RAG baselines, a 93.1% hallucination reduction on LLaMA-2-7B, and near-zero retrieval overhead thanks to a popularity-gated retrieval policy. The reason to care is that this would give recommenders a parameter-efficient way to stay current and factual without fine-tuning the backbone.

What carries the argument

The hop-field knowledge subgraph is the central object: for a target item, it is the l-hop neighborhood of that item in the external KG, with each hop's representation produced by a layer of the indexing GNN, so a subgraph becomes one vector in the knowledge database. The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage GNN-plus-projector alignment: GNNIndexing builds the retrievable multi-hop embeddings, GNNEncoding re-encodes the re-ranked retrieved subgraphs, and an MLP projector maps the concatenated embeddings into the LLM's embedding space as a soft prompt. This is what lets a frozen LLM consume structured knowledge without long serialized text.

What would settle it

Run K-RagRec with the same GNN encoding and soft-prompt pipeline but replace similarity-based retrieval with random subgraph retrieval or popularity-only retrieval; if accuracy stays within a few points of the reported numbers, semantic retrieval is not what carries the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

K-RagRec's central discovery is that structure itself is the missing ingredient: triples serialized as text lose the neighborhood relationships that recommendation reasoning needs, while graph embeddings do not. For each item, the framework builds hop-field knowledge subgraphs by running a GNN indexing layer per hop, stores each subgraph's representation in a vector database, retrieves the top-K most similar subgraphs to the item's title, re-ranks them against the recommendation prompt, and encodes the survivors with a second GNN followed by an MLP projector that places the graph embeddings in the LLM's semantic space as soft prompts. Only the two GNNs and the projector are trained; the LLM backbone stays frozen. The paper reports that this setup outperforms KG-text RAG and graph-token RAG baselines on all three datasets and backbones, matches or approaches LoRA fine-tuning with prompt tuning alone, achieves its best results when the same retrieval is attached to LoRA, and transfers zero-shot from MovieLens-1M to MovieLens-20M and Amazon Book.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains depend on the assumption that the subgraphs selected by embedding similarity to an item's title are the ones whose structure, after GNN encoding, actually helps the frozen LLM pick the right item; retrieval quality is never measured separately from end-to-end accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frozen LLMs can gain recommendation knowledge without backbone fine-tuning: K-RagRec's prompt-tuning version matches or approaches LoRA-tuned systems on most settings.
  • The popularity-gated retrieval policy keeps RAG cheap: inference time with retrieval is about 1.06 seconds versus 0.92 seconds without retrieval on MovieLens-1M with LLaMA-2-7B, well below the other RAG baselines.
  • Hallucinated recommendations drop sharply when knowledge subgraphs are injected: 93.1% fewer hallucinated movies on LLaMA-2-7B and 80.9% fewer on QWEN2 in the paper's fictional-candidate test.
  • Retrieval-augmented knowledge transfers across domains: a model trained only on MovieLens-1M still beats prompt-tuned RAG baselines on MovieLens-20M and Amazon Book.
  • Retrieval and trainable adapters are complementary: K-RagRec combined with LoRA gives the best accuracy on nearly every dataset and backbone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because retrieval quality is never measured independently of downstream accuracy, a direct test would compare K-RagRec's similarity-based retrieval against an oracle or random retriever; the accuracy gap would isolate how much of the gain is retrieval versus GNN and soft-prompt encoding.
  • The popularity policy gates on item frequency alone, so a testable refinement is to gate on predicted retrieval benefit instead; middle-frequency items may be exactly where subgraph knowledge changes the answer.
  • The retrieval query is always the item's title, while the user's history enters only at re-ranking; retrieving subgraphs with the full user prompt or user-item co-occurrence could strengthen the method, but that is an extension the paper does not test.
  • Because the knowledge database is built once at indexing time, inserting new items or triples after training is a natural stress test; if accuracy holds without retraining the GNNs, the framework can serve genuinely up-to-date catalogs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes K-RagRec, a retrieval-augmented generation framework for LLM-based recommendation. The method indexes l-hop knowledge sub-graphs from an external knowledge graph using a PLM and a GNN, applies a popularity threshold to decide which historical items need retrieval, retrieves the top-K sub-graphs by semantic similarity, re-ranks them to a top-N set using the recommendation prompt, and encodes the final sub-graphs with a second GNN plus an MLP projector into a soft prompt for a frozen LLM. Only the two GNNs and the projector are trained, while the LLM backbone remains frozen. The paper evaluates K-RagRec on MovieLens-1M, MovieLens-20M, and Amazon Book with LLama-2-7B, LLama-3-8B, and QWEN2-7B backbones, reporting Accuracy and Recall@k against KG-text, KAPING, GraphToken w/ RAG, G-retriever, and LoRA-based baselines, along with efficiency, hallucination, cold-start, and zero-shot transfer studies. The headline results show large consistent gains, for example 0.435 ACC versus 0.274 for G-retriever on MovieLens-1M with LLama-2-7B, and a 93.1% hallucination reduction on LLama-2-7B.

Significance. If the results hold, K-RagRec makes a useful empirical contribution by showing that structured KG information can be injected into a frozen LLM through learned soft prompts, avoiding long serialized text and expensive fine-tuning. The paper has several strengths: it evaluates across three datasets, three LLM backbones, and multiple metrics; it includes efficiency measurements, a hallucination analysis, a cold-start study, and zero-shot transfer experiments; and its ablation study shows that each module contributes to the final accuracy. The main weakness is attribution: the large reported gains are attributed to retrieval quality, but the experiments do not isolate the semantic retrieval ranking from the GNN encoding and projector components. Because the central contribution is framed as retrieval-augmented generation, this attribution gap is load-bearing and should be addressed with a random-subgraph control before the claim can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.4, §4.5, Table 1] The hyperparameters p, K, and N are apparently selected on the same datasets used for the headline results, and the text does not describe a validation split or a tuning protocol. Figures 4-6 show curves that peak near the chosen values (p=50%, K=3, N=5), yet Appendix A.1 only states that three seeds were averaged and gives no variance or significance information. Several reported gains are small in absolute terms (for example, Table 1 shows a 1.6% R@5 improvement for LLama-3 on MovieLens-20M and a 2.4% R@5 improvement for the LoRA comparison on MovieLens-1M), so without error bars or an independent validation procedure the claim that K-RagRec consistently outperforms all baselines is not fully supported. Please report standard deviations or confidence intervals and separate hyperparameter selection from the evaluation set.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (5), §4.3, Fig. 3] The paper attributes the gains to retrieving high-quality knowledge subgraphs, but no experiment isolates the retrieval ranking. The ablation variants in Figure 3 remove whole modules: K-RagRec(-Indexing) also changes subgraph construction (Appendix A.6 replaces GNNIndexing with PLM embeddings and extracts second-order subgraphs), and none of the variants replaces the semantic similarity in Eq. (5) with a random or popularity-matched selection. As a result, the contribution of the ranking itself is untested. I would like to see a control that keeps every other component fixed and substitutes randomly sampled knowledge subgraphs (same number K, same KG, same re-ranking and encoding). If accuracy does not drop substantially, the reported improvement should be attributed to the GNN encoder and projector rather than to retrieval quality, which would change the framing of the contribution.
  3. [§3.7, Eqs. (5)-(8), §A.1] The retrieval step in Eq. (5) is defined over vector representations z_g*, but the encoding in Eq. (7) is defined over knowledge sub-graphs g* as graph structures. The manuscript does not specify how a retrieved vector maps back to the concrete node and edge set that is passed to GNNEncoding, nor how the l-hop subgraphs are materialized for the l values used in the indexing GNN. This is a reproducibility gap: a reader cannot reconstruct G_j or G_hat from the equations as written. Please clarify the data structure stored in the knowledge vector database and the exact mapping from retrieved embeddings to subgraph inputs.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are minor typographical and formatting inconsistencies: "SentenseBert" should be "SentenceBERT"; "LLama" and "Lora" are used inconsistently with "LLaMA" and "LoRA"; and the Spanish-language prompt in Appendix A.12 contains missing diacritics (for example, "espaol" and "bilinges").
  2. [§4.4, Table 2] The efficiency comparison reports time for one inference but does not specify whether this is a median over seeds, whether GPU warm-up is excluded, or whether all methods share the same batching and decoding settings; a brief measurement protocol would make Table 2 more informative.
  3. [Appendix A.7] In Table 6, the improvement percentages quoted in the text (21.6% and 8.7%) are not accompanied by the exact baseline numbers used for those calculations, so the reader cannot verify them against Table 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: K-RagRec is validated against external benchmarks, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical pipeline built from independently stated components: semantic indexing (Eqs. 1-3), retrieval by similarity (Eq. 5), re-ranking (Eq. 6), GNN encoding and projection (Eqs. 7-8), and soft-prompt optimization with a frozen LLM (Eq. 9). The reported claims are measured recommendation ranks (ACC, Recall@k) on held-out interactions from MovieLens-1M, MovieLens-20M, and Amazon Book against baselines, so there is no fitted constant that is later renamed as a prediction. The hallucination reduction in Table 7 is directly measured by injecting fictional movies into candidate sets, not derived from a fitted parameter. Self-citations (Fan et al. 2024a, 2024b; Qu et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024) appear in background, survey, and related-work context and do not carry the central effectiveness claim. The skeptical concern that retrieval quality is not isolated from downstream accuracy is a legitimate experimental-design limitation, but it is not a circularity: the paper never defines its accuracy metric in terms of its retrieval scoring function, and no equation reduces Eq. 5 to Table 1. Overall, the central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. The central claim rests on three hand-tuned hyperparameters (p, K, N) chosen from the evaluation datasets, and on domain assumptions about the KG's faithfulness, the power law of popularity, the effectiveness of semantic similarity for retrieval, and the viability of soft prompt alignment for frozen LLMs. These are reasonable but not independently verified within the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • popularity threshold p = 0.5
    Set to 50% based on a parameter sweep on MovieLens-1M with LLama-2-7B (Figure 4); applied uniformly to all datasets.
  • retrieved knowledge sub-graph number K = 3
    Chosen by varying K on the Amazon Book dataset (Figure 5) and then fixed for all experiments.
  • re-ranking knowledge sub-graph number N = 5
    Selected from an analysis on Amazon Book (Figure 6); the paper notes N between 5 and 7 works best, and N=5 is used everywhere.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Freebase, filtered to triples related to the three datasets, provides a faithful and sufficiently complete knowledge graph for items.
    Invoked in Section 4.1.1 when reconstructing the KG from Freebase; the model's retrieved knowledge is only as reliable as this external source.
  • domain assumption Popularity in recommender systems follows a power law, so items below a popularity threshold benefit most from knowledge retrieval.
    Used in Section 3.4 to justify the popularity selective retrieval policy; if the power law assumption fails, the policy would skip useful retrievals for popular items.
  • domain assumption SentenceBERT semantic similarity between the query item title and the subgraph embedding is a good retrieval signal for recommendation-relevant knowledge.
    Relied on in Section 3.5, Eq. 5, to rank and select knowledge subgraphs; the paper does not measure retrieval precision or recall directly.
  • domain assumption A frozen LLM can effectively use structure information when it arrives as soft prompts mapped from GNN embeddings via a linear projector.
    Assumed in Sections 3.7-3.8; the entire soft prompt alignment rests on the untested premise that the projector places graph structure into the LLM's usable embedding space.
  • standard math GNN message passing and cross-entropy loss are standard, valid optimization tools.
    Used in Section 3.3, Eqs. 3 and 9; these are conventional and not load-bearing assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for LLM-based Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YTJ56JA

@misc{pith2026250102226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for LLM-based Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YTJ56JA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02226}
}
read the original abstract

Recommender systems have become increasingly vital in our daily lives, helping to alleviate the problem of information overload across various user-oriented online services. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has yielded remarkable achievements, demonstrating their potential for the development of next-generation recommender systems. Despite these advancements, LLM-based recommender systems face inherent limitations stemming from their LLM backbones, particularly issues of hallucinations and the lack of up-to-date and domain-specific knowledge. Recently, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has garnered significant attention for addressing these limitations by leveraging external knowledge sources to enhance the understanding and generation of LLMs. However, vanilla RAG methods often introduce noise and neglect structural relationships in knowledge, limiting their effectiveness in LLM-based recommendations. To address these limitations, we propose to retrieve high-quality and up-to-date structure information from the knowledge graph (KG) to augment recommendations. Specifically, our approach develops a retrieval-augmented framework, termed K-RagRec, that facilitates the recommendation generation process by incorporating structure information from the external KG. Extensive experiments have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02226 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the issues of hallucinations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of the K-RagRec. It contains five key components: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison among K-RagRec and its four ablated variants on MovieLens-1M and Amazon Book datasets and LLama-2-7b across metrics Accuracy, Re￾call@3 and Recall@5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of popularity selective retrieval policy threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of retrieved knowledge sub-graph numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of re-ranking knowledge sub-graph numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GARDRec: Decision-Level Graph Grounding for Large Language Model Recommendation

    cs.IR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GARDRec improves LLM-based next-item ranking by grounding decisions in knowledge-graph embeddings, personalized graph contexts, and late-stage scoring rather than prompt text.

  2. Toward Reliable Scientific Hypothesis Generation: Evaluating Truthfulness and Hallucination in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark (TruthHypo) and a knowledge-grounded hallucination detector (KnowHD) show that grounding scores can partially select truthful LLM-generated biomedical hypotheses, but the result is at risk from knowled...

  3. Learning to Shop Like Humans: A Review-driven Retrieval-Augmented Recommendation Framework with LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    RevBrowse retrieves preference-relevant pros and cons from reviews via a contrastively trained module, then uses an LLM to rerank candidates; experiments on four Amazon datasets show consistent improvements over baselines.

  4. HealthGenie: Empowering Users with Healthy Dietary Guidance through Knowledge Graph and Large Language Models

    cs.HC 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HealthGenie couples an LLM chatbot with a clickable knowledge graph for dietary advice; a small within-subject user study reports higher perceived usefulness and satisfaction than a separated chatbot and graph.

  5. Score-based Generative Diffusion Models for Social Recommendations

    cs.SI 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SGSR uses score-based SDE diffusion to generate denoised social user representations conditioned on collaborative signals, reporting 2-5% relative gains over prior recommenders on three datasets.

  6. X-KGRank: A Knowledge Graph RAG Framework for Explainable Recommendations via Pattern Mining and LLM Re-Ranking

    cs.IR 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    X-KGRank couples a LightGCN recommender with knowledge-graph-grounded LLM explanations, reporting +17% NDCG@10 over a popularity baseline on MovieLens-1M, though the LLM does not affect the final ranking.

  7. Effectiveness of LLMs in Temporal User Profiling for Recommendation

    cs.IR 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLM-generated temporal user profiles, fused by attention, improve content-based recommendation in high-activity domains but yield mixed results in sparse domains.

  8. MultiFluxAI Enhancing Platform Engineering with Advanced Agent-Orchestrated Retrieval Systems

    cs.AI 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors claim their MultiFluxAI orchestration framework achieves 95% accuracy and 0-10 ms responses by combining rule-based routing, caching, and graph knowledge stores for multi-service RAG queries.

  9. LlamaRec-LKG-RAG: A Single-Pass, Learnable Knowledge Graph-RAG Framework for LLM-Based Ranking

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A KG-enhanced LlamaRec that feeds user-specific relation paths into a Llama-2 ranker reports modest MRR, NDCG, and Recall gains on two benchmarks.

  10. A Survey on Large Language Models in Multimodal Recommender Systems

    cs.IR 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A literature survey that categorizes LLM-based multimodal recommendation methods into prompting, training, and data-adaptation families and compiles datasets and metrics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Himan Abdollahpouri, Robin Burke, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2017. Controlling popularity bias in learning-to-rank recommendation. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems, pages 42--46

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Yihao Ang, Yifan Bao, Qiang Huang, Anthony KH Tung, and Zhiyong Huang. 2024. Tsgassist: An interactive assistant harnessing llms and rag for time series generation recommendations and benchmarking. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(12):4309--4312

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Jinheon Baek, Alham Fikri Aji, and Amir Saffari. 2023. Knowledge-augmented language model prompting for zero-shot knowledge graph question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04136

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Yang Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, and Xiangnan He. 2023. Tallrec: An effective and efficient tuning framework to align large language model with recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1007--1014

    2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conf...

    2022

  2. [10]

    \`O scar Celma and Perfecto Herrera. 2008. A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems, pages 179--186

    2008

  3. [11]

    Dario Di Palma. 2023. Retrieval-augmented recommender system: Enhancing recommender systems with large language models. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1369--1373

    2023

  4. [12]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024 a . A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mini...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Yuan He, Eric Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. 2019. Graph neural networks for social recommendation. In The world wide web conference, pages 417--426

    2019

  7. [15]

    Wenqi Fan, Shijie Wang, Jiani Huang, Zhikai Chen, Yu Song, Wenzhuo Tang, Haitao Mao, Hui Liu, Xiaorui Liu, Dawei Yin, et al. 2024 b . Graph machine learning in the era of large language models (llms). arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14928

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. 2023. Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04560

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Shijie Geng, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. Recommendation as language processing (rlp): A unified pretrain, personalized prompt & predict paradigm (p5). In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 299--315

    2022

  11. [19]

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929--3938. PMLR

    2020

  12. [20]

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  13. [21]

    Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. 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,...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh V Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. 2024. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07630

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yupeng Hou, Shanlei Mu, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Towards universal sequence representation learning for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 585--593

    2022

  16. [24]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas O g uz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Benjamin Le, and Ganesh Venkataraman. 2017. Personalized job recommendation system at linkedin: Practical challenges and lessons learned. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems, pages 346--347

    2017

  20. [28]

    Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2019. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tiziano Labruna, Jon Ander Campos, and Gorka Azkune. 2024. When to retrieve: Teaching llms to utilize information retrieval effectively. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19705

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jiatong Li, Yunqing Liu, Wenqi Fan, Xiao-Yong Wei, Hui Liu, Jiliang Tang, and Qing Li. 2024. Empowering molecule discovery for molecule-caption translation with large language models: A chatgpt perspective. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2024

  24. [32]

    Linhao Luo, Yuan-Fang Li, Gholamreza Haffari, and Shirui Pan. 2023. Reasoning on graphs: Faithful and interpretable large language model reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01061

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Costas Mavromatis and George Karypis. 2024. Gnn-rag: Graph neural retrieval for large language model reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20139

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Ambigqa: Answering ambiguous open-domain questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10645

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bryan Perozzi, Bahare Fatemi, Dustin Zelle, Anton Tsitsulin, Mehran Kazemi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Jonathan Halcrow. 2024. Let your graph do the talking: Encoding structured data for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05862

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Haohao Qu, Wenqi Fan, Zihuai Zhao, and Qing Li. 2024. Tokenrec: Learning to tokenize id for llm-based generative recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10450

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1316--1331

    2023

  30. [38]

    N Reimers. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Priyanka Sen, Sandeep Mavadia, and Amir Saffari. 2023. Knowledge graph-augmented language models for complex question answering. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Reasoning and Structured Explanations (NLRSE), pages 1--8

    2023

  32. [40]

    Yunsheng Shi, Zhengjie Huang, Shikun Feng, Hui Zhong, Wenjin Wang, and Yu Sun. 2020. Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03509

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jiashuo Sun, Chengjin Xu, Lumingyuan Tang, Saizhuo Wang, Chen Lin, Yeyun Gong, Heung-Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo. 2023. Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model with knowledge graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07697

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, Yoshua Bengio, et al. 2017. Graph attention networks. stat, 1050(20):10--48550

    2017

  36. [44]

    Keheng Wang, Feiyu Duan, Sirui Wang, Peiguang Li, Yunsen Xian, Chuantao Yin, Wenge Rong, and Zhang Xiong. 2023. Knowledge-driven cot: Exploring faithful reasoning in llms for knowledge-intensive question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13259

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wei Wei, Xubin Ren, Jiabin Tang, Qinyong Wang, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Junfeng Wang, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Llmrec: Large language models with graph augmentation for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Junda Wu, Cheng-Chun Chang, Tong Yu, Zhankui He, Jianing Wang, Yupeng Hou, and Julian McAuley. 2024. Coral: Collaborative retrieval-augmented large language models improve long-tail recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Dat...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Shengqiong Wu, Hao Fei, Leigang Qu, Wei Ji, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023 a . Next-gpt: Any-to-any multimodal llm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05519

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Yike Wu, Nan Hu, Sheng Bi, Guilin Qi, Jie Ren, Anhuan Xie, and Wei Song. 2023 b . Retrieve-rewrite-answer: A kg-to-text enhanced llms framework for knowledge graph question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11206

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Shi-Qi Yan, Jia-Chen Gu, Yun Zhu, and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2024. Corrective retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, et al. 2024. Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Junjie Zhang, Yupeng Hou, Ruobing Xie, Wenqi Sun, Julian McAuley, Wayne Xin Zhao, Leyu Lin, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Agentcf: Collaborative learning with autonomous language agents for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pages 3679--3689

    2024

  44. [52]

    Yang Zhang, Fuli Feng, Jizhi Zhang, Keqin Bao, Qifan Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2023. Collm: Integrating collaborative embeddings into large language models for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19488

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Jujia Zhao, Wenjie Wang, Xinyu Lin, Leigang Qu, Jizhi Zhang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. Popularity-aware distributionally robust optimization for recommendation system. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 4967--4973

    2023

  46. [54]

    Zihuai Zhao, Wenqi Fan, Jiatong Li, Yunqing Liu, Xiaowei Mei, Yiqi Wang, Zhen Wen, Fei Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Jiliang Tang, et al. 2024. Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2024

  47. [55]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  48. [56]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  49. [57]

    Items in KG

    11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEco...

    2022

Pith tools

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