Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Supply Chain Visibility with Generative AI: An Exploratory Case Study on Relationship Prediction in Knowledge Graphs

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pretrained language model embeddings make supply chain link prediction near-perfect: LM-enhanced models hit balanced accuracy above 0.999 across 27 country datasets, beating every ML-only benchmark.

desk verdict The quintuplet framing is a small real step and the motivation is sound, but the near-perfect accuracies come from a leaky split, so the headline claim as stated is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03390 v1 pith:BKAHV3EU submitted 2024-12-04 cs.CE cs.AI

Ge Zheng , Alexandra Brintrup This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.AI
keywords GenerativeAIpretrainedlanguagemodelssupplychainvisibilitylinkpredictionknowledgegraphsquintupletautomotiverelationship
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

Supply chain risk management is hampered by poor visibility into who supplies whom, with what product, and from where. This paper proposes a framework that represents supply chain facts as quintuplets—five-part statements such as (Company A, supplies, Product 1, to, Company B)—and predicts whether such facts hold by embedding their textual descriptions with pretrained language models and feeding those embeddings to ordinary machine learning classifiers. The paper reports that the LM-enhanced classifiers outperform all five ML-only benchmarks on all 27 country-level automotive datasets, with test balanced accuracy often reaching 1.0000, and that they provide contextual product and certificate information that triplet-based methods cannot. If the result holds, regulators and companies could probe supply chain dependencies without waiting for firms to voluntarily disclose their supplier relationships.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quintuplet, a five-element statement $(v_1, \epsilon_{1,2}, v_2, \epsilon_{2,3}, v_3)$ that condenses three knowledge-graph triplets into one contextual fact, such as (Company A, supplies, Product 1, to, Company B). The mechanism is a two-stage pipeline: a pretrained language model converts the textual rendering of a quintuplet into a fixed-length embedding, and a traditional machine learning model (ANN, CNN1D, AutoEncoder, LSTM, or logistic regression) classifies the embedding as positive or negative. The pretrained LM acts as a general knowledge base, while the ML classifier provides the factual anchor that keeps the prediction consistent with the knowledge graph.

What would settle it

Hold out all quintuplets whose entities (companies or products) never appear in the training set, then compare balanced accuracy of LM-enhanced versus ML-only classifiers on that held-out set. If the LM-enhanced advantage disappears or drops toward the ML-only baseline, the claim that the method improves supply chain visibility beyond memorising known entity associations would be refuted; if accuracy stays near 1.0, the generalisation claim would be supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pretrained language models hold retrievable relational knowledge about supply chain entities, and that combining this knowledge with a supervised classifier yields more accurate prediction of multi-entity supply chain relationships than the classifier alone. The paper introduces quintuplets, e.g. (company, supplies, product, to, company), as the prediction target, converts each quintuplet into a sentence, embeds it with a pretrained LM, and trains a binary classifier to decide whether the fact exists. In the reported experiments every LM-enhanced model beats its non-enhanced counterpart for both quintuplet types on every country dataset, and the multilingual embedding model 'distiluse-base-multilingual-cased-v2' gives the most consistent performance. The authors conclude that the LM supplies contextual knowledge while the ML classifier anchors predictions to the knowledge graph, reducing the risk of hallucination.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that a random 70/10/20 split of quintuplets at the relationship level measures whether the model can predict supply chain relationships it has not seen, even though the same companies and products appear on both sides of the split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Supply chain analysts could identify which product flows from which supplier to which buyer, rather than only whether two firms are connected, sharpening disruption and risk estimates.
  • Because the language model is not fine-tuned, the approach is affordable for small and mid-size companies that lack NLP expertise and large labelled datasets.
  • Multilingual pretrained language models appear to be the best default choice for this task, since they give the most consistent accuracy across datasets and quintuplet types.
  • The reported near-perfect test scores imply that, on the Marklines data, LM embeddings nearly perfectly separate true from false quintuplets, at least under the paper's random split.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the 70/10/20 split is made at the relationship level, the same companies and products appear in training and test sets, so part of the near-perfect accuracy may reflect the classifier memorising entity-specific associations in the LM embeddings rather than inferring genuinely unseen supply chain relationships.
  • Editorial extension: a stronger test would hold out entire companies or products and ask whether the LM-enhanced models still beat the benchmarks; if accuracy collapses under that split, the practical gain in visibility for new actors would be smaller than the paper's reported numbers suggest.
  • Editorial extension: if the method survives entity-disjoint evaluation, the same embedding-plus-classifier recipe could be transferred to other contextual relationship types in supply chain knowledge graphs, such as locations or transaction volumes, without retraining the language model.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for supply chain relationship prediction in knowledge graphs, introducing a 'quintuplet' representation (e.g., company A supplies product 1 to company B) to capture contextual information beyond standard triplets. The method embeds textual descriptions of quintuplets using pretrained language models and then trains standard machine learning classifiers (ANN, CNN, LSTM, LogReg, AutoEncoder) to predict whether a quintuplet exists, framed as binary classification. The authors evaluate on Marklines automotive data split into 27 country-level datasets, comparing classifiers with and without pretrained LM embeddings. They report that the LM-enhanced approach achieves near-perfect accuracy (often exactly 1.0) across all datasets, and conclude that pretrained LM-enhanced quintuplet prediction surpasses all benchmarks and provides more consistent, context-aware supply chain visibility.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the work would offer a practically relevant, low-cost method for supply chain surveillance, because it uses frozen pretrained LMs and off-the-shelf classifiers, avoiding expensive fine-tuning. The quintuplet formulation is a meaningful extension of triplet-based knowledge graph reasoning for supply chains, and the paper identifies an important problem: contextual relationship prediction (who supplies what to whom) rather than binary supplier-buyer links. The paper is explicitly exploratory and does not release code or data, and the main evidence is a single case study. The central empirical claim, however, is currently not supported because the evaluation protocol allows entity-level leakage and lacks comparisons to established KG link prediction baselines. The conceptual framework and the proposed representation are useful, but the reported results do not yet demonstrate generalizable relationship prediction.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 and Tables 8-9] The random 70/10/20 relationship-level split does not test generalization to unseen supply chain relationships. Because the split is performed on relationships, the same companies, products, and certificates appear in both training and test quintuplets. Since the pretrained LM embeddings are computed from text that explicitly names these entities, the classifier can memorize entity-specific associations that transfer trivially to test instances sharing those entities. The near-perfect test accuracies (often exactly 1.0000) are consistent with this memorization rather than with learning generalizable supply chain structure. To support the central claim in Section 5, the authors should re-evaluate using entity-disjoint splits (e.g., withhold all quintuplets involving a held-out set of companies or products) or a temporal split, and report whether the improvements persist.
  2. [Section 5] The claim that pretrained LM-enhanced link prediction 'surpasses all benchmarks' is not supported because the only benchmarks are the same five ML models without LM embeddings, trained on the same split. The KG link prediction methods cited in Section 2.2 (Kosasih et al., 2022; Brockmann et al., 2022) are not compared, nor are simpler feature-based baselines such as entity-embedding or graph-embedding methods. At minimum, the authors should compare against one existing KG link prediction method and one non-LM feature representation to contextualize the gains and to justify the phrase 'all benchmarks.'
  3. [Section 4.2.2 and Tables 8-9] No repeated-seed variance or error bars are reported. Given the near-perfect scores (many 1.0000) and the stochastic nature of neural network training, a single run cannot distinguish real performance from a fortunate initialization. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple random seeds (at least 5-10) and perform a statistical comparison across the 27 datasets (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to assess whether the LM enhancement consistently improves accuracy.
  4. [Section 3.2.1 versus Tables 8-9] The framework is stated to use five pretrained LMs, but the main results tables report only 'all-MiniLM-L12-v2' for all machine learning models. The other four LMs appear only in Figure 5, and only for CNN. As a result, the general conclusion that 'pretrained LM-enhanced link prediction outperforms' is demonstrated for only one embedding model in the primary tables. The authors should either present complete results for all five LMs across all five ML models or explicitly limit the claim to the specific LM used.
  5. [Section 4.1] The negative sampling procedure may make the prediction task artificially easy. Negative quintuplets are generated by replacing an entity with another entity that is known not to connect the other two, and one negative is selected per positive to create a balanced set. With such constructed negatives, a classifier could learn to detect the specific replacement pattern rather than general semantic plausibility of the relationship. The authors should evaluate robustness under alternative negative-sampling strategies (e.g., random corruption, hard negatives from the embedding space) and report whether the near-perfect accuracy persists, since this is central to the claim that the method enhances supply chain visibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The paper refers to pretrained language models as 'Generative AI' throughout; since the models are used only as frozen embedding encoders and do not generate new content, the term 'GenAI-enhanced' may overstate the architectural role. Consider using 'pretrained language model-enhanced' when describing the method.
  2. [Section 3.1] The formal definition of a quintuplet as '(v1, ϵ1,2, v2, ϵ2,3, v3)' does not match the five-token examples like '(Company A, supplies, Product 1, to, Company B)', which include a preposition. The notation should be reconciled with the examples, and the relation of variables to the preposition should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.1] In the paragraph describing negative generation, the sentence 'three negative quintuplets can be generated by replacing any one of the three entities: (company A, has product, product 1), (product 1, purchased by, company B) and (company A, supplies to, company B)' lists triplets, not quintuplets, and is confusing. Please rewrite this passage so the negative-quintuplet construction is unambiguous.
  4. [Table 1] The table columns for model size, dimensions, and training data size are misaligned; for example, the row for 'distiluse-base-multilingual-cased-v2' appears to concatenate '480MB' with '1 million sentence pairs (15 languages)' in a single cell. The formatting should be corrected so each column contains the intended value.
  5. [Section 4.2.3] The 'balanced accuracy weighted' formula is given as inline text rather than as an equation, and the notation wp and wn is introduced only after the formula. Please number the equation and define all variables before use.
  6. [Section 5] There is a typo in the final paragraph: 'we have shows' should be 'we have shown'. Additionally, the phrase 'supply network surveillance' appears in the conclusion while the abstract uses 'supply chain surveillance'; the terminology should be consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Near-perfect test scores under a random relationship-level split reflect target-in-feature leakage, so the central claim that pretrained LM-enhanced quintuplet prediction surpasses all benchmarks is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (quintuplet-to-text embedding) combined with the relationship-level split in Section 4.2.2]
    "The next step involves transferring quintuplets into composed snippets of text with a user-defined schema. ... The composed text is then sent to a pre-trained language model for embedding and and retrieved hidden relational knowledge previously learned in the pre-trained language model. The embeddings of quintuplets with retrieved relational knowledge are used to train a suitable machine learning model for quintuplet prediction."

    The classifier input is the LM embedding of a sentence that states the very quintuplet whose existence is the label, and the label is whether that quintuplet exists in the knowledge graph. Under the paper's split, 'we use 70%, 10% and 20% of relationships present in each data partition' (Section 4.2.2), so train and test quintuplets share the same companies, products, and certificates. Entity names in the composed text therefore act as keys to associations memorized from the training partition, and the reported 0.999-1.000 balanced accuracies in Tables 8-9 are forced by this target-in-feature leakage rather than by generalizable relational knowledge.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical, not a formal derivation chain, so the relevant question is whether the reported 'prediction' is independent of the data that generates its inputs. The composed text is constructed from the target quintuplet itself, and the random 70/10/20 relationship-level split leaves overlapping entities across partitions; the near-perfect results are therefore explainable by entity memorization. This is a partial circularity in the evaluation, not a self-citation or definitional tautology. The self-citations to Brintrup et al. (2018, 2023) and Kosasih et al. (2022) are used as prior work and benchmarks rather than as load-bearing justification for the result, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The score of 6 reflects that the headline claim is substantially undermined by the reduction of the prediction task to a transductive lookup, while the framework itself remains an empirical proposal with no formal derivation to examine.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The empirical claim rests on the commercial dataset's accuracy, the validity of random relationship-level splits, and the untested assumption that LM embeddings contribute relational knowledge rather than entity-name memorization. The only invented entity is the 'quintuplet', a representational shortcut for 2-hop paths.

free parameters (7)
  • learning_rate = 0.001
    Set uniformly for all models following common guidelines; not tuned per model or dataset.
  • batch_size = 64
    Set uniformly; standard choice.
  • early_stopping_patience = 10 epochs
    Chosen by hand to stop training if validation loss increases for 10 consecutive epochs.
  • ANN hidden units = 300 per layer, 3 layers
    Architecture choice for the ANN, not justified by data.
  • AutoEncoder bottleneck size = 48
    Compressed representation size chosen by hand.
  • LSTM hidden size = 16
    Chosen by hand.
  • CNN kernels and strides = 32/64 kernels, size 7, stride 2/1
    Chosen by hand for the 1D convolutional layers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Marklines dataset is an accurate ground truth for supply chain relationships.
    The entire evaluation treats the third-party dataset's triplets as true relationships; no validation of data accuracy is provided (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Random 70/10/20 split at the relationship level measures generalization to unseen supply chain relationships.
    The split (Section 4.2.2) allows the same companies and products in train and test, so high accuracy may reflect entity memorization rather than prediction of unknown links.
  • domain assumption Pretrained language model embeddings encode relational knowledge useful for supply chain link prediction.
    The paper relies on this to explain improvements (Section 3.2, Section 5), but does not test it with a random-embedding or non-entity-aware ablation.
  • standard math A quintuplet's existence is determined by the conjunction of its constituent triplets.
    Quintuplets are constructed from triplets (Section 3.1), so prediction of a quintuplet reduces to predicting the co-occurrence of known triplets.
invented entities (1)
  • quintuplet
    purpose: A 5-tuple (v1, e12, v2, e23, v3) intended to represent contextual supply chain relationships such as 'company A supplies product 1 to company B'.
    This is a notational construct condensing two or three triplets into one tuple; it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper and is essentially a 2-hop path.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Supply Chain Visibility with Generative AI: An Exploratory Case Study on Relationship Prediction in Knowledge Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKAHV3EU

@misc{pith2026241203390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Supply Chain Visibility with Generative AI: An Exploratory Case Study on Relationship Prediction in Knowledge Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKAHV3EU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03390}
}
read the original abstract

A key stumbling block in effective supply chain risk management for companies and policymakers is a lack of visibility on interdependent supply network relationships. Relationship prediction, also called link prediction is an emergent area of supply chain surveillance research that aims to increase the visibility of supply chains using data-driven techniques. Existing methods have been successful for predicting relationships but struggle to extract the context in which these relationships are embedded - such as the products being supplied or locations they are supplied from. Lack of context prevents practitioners from distinguishing transactional relations from established supply chain relations, hindering accurate estimations of risk. In this work, we develop a new Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) enhanced machine learning framework that leverages pre-trained language models as embedding models combined with machine learning models to predict supply chain relationships within knowledge graphs. By integrating Generative AI techniques, our approach captures the nuanced semantic relationships between entities, thereby improving supply chain visibility and facilitating more precise risk management. Using data from a real case study, we show that GenAI-enhanced link prediction surpasses all benchmarks, and demonstrate how GenAI models can be explored and effectively used in supply chain risk management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03390 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) company-level relationships in a supply chain network (Brintrup et al., 2018); (b) multiple relationships including (company, supplies to, company), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pretrained LM-enhanced supply chain link prediction framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) results on quintuplet (company, supplies, product, to, company) achieved by different machine learning models (b) results achieved by pretrained LM-enhanced machine learning models with “all-MiniLM-L12-v2” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) shows results of predicting relationships in the quintuplet of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) results of predicting relationships in a quintruplet of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LLM Harms: A Taxonomy and Discussion

    cs.CY 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    This paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM harms in five categories and suggests mitigation strategies plus a dynamic auditing system for responsible development.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nappa, X

    Abu-Nimeh, S., D. Nappa, X. Wang, and S. Nair (2007). A comparison of machine learning techniques for phishing detection. In Proceedings of the anti-phishing working groups 2nd annual eCrime researchers summit , pp.\ 60--69

    2007

  2. [2]

    Kumarage, Z

    Agrawal, G., T. Kumarage, Z. Alghami, and H. Liu (2023). Can knowledge graphs reduce hallucinations in llms?: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07914\/

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Aguero, D. and S. D. Nelson (2024). The potential application of large language models in pharmaceutical supply chain management. The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics\/ 29\/ (2), 200--205

    2024

  4. [4]

    ElKorany, and R

    Ahmed, C., A. ElKorany, and R. Bahgat (2016). A supervised learning approach to link prediction in twitter. Social Network Analysis and Mining\/ 6 , 1--11

    2016

  5. [5]

    Albawi, S., T. A. Mohammed, and S. Al-Zawi (2017). Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In 2017 international conference on engineering and technology (ICET) , pp.\ 1--6. Ieee

    2017

  6. [6]

    How ai could transform fast fashion for the better—and worse

    Astha Rajvanshi (2023). How ai could transform fast fashion for the better—and worse. (accessed: 12.11.2024)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bellamy, M. A. and R. C. Basole (2013). Network analysis of supply chain systems: A systematic review and future research. Systems Engineering\/ 16\/ (2), 235--249

    2013

  8. [8]

    Camacho-Collados, and S

    Bouraoui, Z., J. Camacho-Collados, and S. Schockaert (2020). Inducing relational knowledge from bert. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Volume 34, pp.\ 7456--7463

    2020

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Kosasih, P

    Brintrup, A., E. Kosasih, P. Schaffer, G. Zheng, G. Demirel, and B. L. MacCarthy (2023). Digital supply chain surveillance using artificial intelligence: definitions, opportunities and risks. International Journal of Production Research\/ , 1--22

    2023

  2. [10]

    Wichmann, P

    Brintrup, A., P. Wichmann, P. Woodall, D. McFarlane, E. Nicks, and W. Krechel (2018). Predicting hidden links in supply networks. Complexity\/ 2018 , 1--12

    2018

  3. [11]

    Elson Kosasih, and A

    Brockmann, N., E. Elson Kosasih, and A. Brintrup (2022). Supply chain link prediction on uncertain knowledge graph. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter\/ 24\/ (2), 124--130

    2022

  4. [12]

    Using generative ai, c.h

    Business Wire (2024). Using generative ai, c.h. robinson has achieved automation across the entire lifecycle of a freight shipment. (accessed: 11.11.2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Cai, L., J. Li, J. Wang, and S. Ji (2021). Line graph neural networks for link prediction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence\/ 44\/ (9), 5103--5113

    2021

  6. [14]

    Caruana, R. and A. Niculescu-Mizil (2006). An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning , pp.\ 161--168

    2006

  7. [15]

    Process mining meets generative ai: Celonis rides industry wave to democratize core tech

    Celonis (2024). Process mining meets generative ai: Celonis rides industry wave to democratize core tech. (accessed: 12.11.2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Choi, T. Y., K. J. Dooley, and M. Rungtusanatham (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of operations management\/ 19\/ (3), 351--366

    2001

  9. [17]

    Fedex at 50: What’s driving transformation? (accessed: 12.11.2024)

    CNBC Evolve Global Summit (2023). Fedex at 50: What’s driving transformation? (accessed: 12.11.2024)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Co s kun, M. and M. Koyut \"u rk (2021). Node similarity-based graph convolution for link prediction in biological networks. Bioinformatics\/ 37\/ (23), 4501--4508

    2021

  11. [19]

    Mars develops a sweet tooth for celonis process intelligence

    Derek du Preez (2023). Mars develops a sweet tooth for celonis process intelligence. (accessed: 12.11.2024)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Kalo, and W.-T

    Fichtel, L., J.-C. Kalo, and W.-T. Balke (2021). Prompt tuning or fine-tuning-investigating relational knowledge in pre-trained language models. In 3rd Conference on Automated Knowledge Base Construction

    2021

  13. [21]

    Guthrie, M

    Fosso Wamba, S., C. Guthrie, M. M. Queiroz, and S. Minner (2024). Chatgpt and generative artificial intelligence: an exploratory study of key benefits and challenges in operations and supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research\/ 62\/ (16), 5676--5696

    2024

  14. [22]

    Fosso Wamba, S., M. M. Queiroz, C. J. C. Jabbour, and C. V. Shi (2023). Are both generative ai and chatgpt game changers for 21st-century operations and supply chain excellence? International Journal of Production Economics\/ 265 , 109015

    2023

  15. [23]

    Gayam, S. R. (2023). Enhancing creative industries with generative ai: Techniques for music composition, art generation, and interactive media. Journal of Machine Learning in Pharmaceutical Research\/ 3\/ (1), 54--88

    2023

  16. [24]

    Pouget-Abadie, M

    Goodfellow, I., J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio (2014). Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 27

    2014

  17. [25]

    Gemini models

    Google DeepMind (2023). Gemini models. (accessed: 13.11.2024)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gowda, S. R., Y. R. Rao, et al. (2024). Data augmentation using generative-ai. Journal of Innovative Image Processing\/ 6\/ (3), 273--289

    2024

  19. [27]

    Bagli, and G

    Grandini, M., E. Bagli, and G. Visani (2020). Metrics for multi-class classification: an overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.05756\/

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Guan, X., Y. Liu, H. Lin, Y. Lu, B. He, X. Han, and L. Sun (2024). Mitigating large language model hallucinations via autonomous knowledge graph-based retrofitting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Volume 38, pp.\ 18126--18134

    2024

  21. [29]

    Hasan, M. A. and M. J. Zaki (2011). A survey of link prediction in social networks. Social network data analytics\/ , 243--275

    2011

  22. [30]

    Hashim, M. E. A., W. A. W. Mustafa, N. S. Prameswari, M. M. Ghani, and H. F. Hanafi (2023). Revolutionizing virtual reality with generative ai: An in-depth review. Journal of Advanced Research in Computing and Applications\/ 30\/ (1), 19--30

    2023

  23. [31]

    Hochreiter, S. and J. Schmidhuber (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural computation\/ 9\/ (8), 1735--1780

    1997

  24. [32]

    Theodora, R

    Holger, H., K. Theodora, R. Roger, and T. Kimberly (2023). While still nascent, generative ai has the potential to help fashion businesses become more productive, get to market faster, and serve customers better. the time to explore the technology is now. (accessed: 12.11.2024)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Huang, L., W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin, et al. (2023). A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232\/

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ialongo, L. N., C. de Valk, E. Marchese, F. Jansen, H. Zmarrou, T. Squartini, and D. Garlaschelli (2022). Reconstructing firm-level interactions in the dutch input--output network from production constraints. Scientific reports\/ 12\/ (1), 11847

    2022

  27. [35]

    Ivanov, A

    Jackson, I., D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, and J. Namdar (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in supply chain and operations management: a capability-based framework for analysis and implementation. International Journal of Production Research\/ , 1--26

    2024

  28. [36]

    Laine, and T

    Karras, T., S. Laine, and T. Aila (2019). A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp.\ 4401--4410

    2019

  29. [37]

    Dufter, and H

    Kassner, N., P. Dufter, and H. Sch \"u tze (2021). Multilingual lama: Investigating knowledge in multilingual pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , pp.\ 3250--3258

    2021

  30. [38]

    Kazemi, S. M. and D. Poole (2018). Simple embedding for link prediction in knowledge graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 31

    2018

  31. [39]

    Kenton, J. D. M.-W. C. and L. K. Toutanova (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT , pp.\ 4171--4186

    2019

  32. [40]

    Kingma, D. P. and J. Ba (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980\/

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kingma, D. P., M. Welling, et al. (2019). An introduction to variational autoencoders. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning\/ 12\/ (4), 307--392

    2019

  34. [42]

    Kleinbaum, D. G., K. Dietz, M. Gail, M. Klein, and M. Klein (2002). Logistic regression . Springer

    2002

  35. [43]

    Kosasih, E. E. and A. Brintrup (2022). A machine learning approach for predicting hidden links in supply chain with graph neural networks. International Journal of Production Research\/ 60\/ (17), 5380--5393

    2022

  36. [44]

    Kosasih, E. E., F. Margaroli, S. Gelli, A. Aziz, N. Wildgoose, and A. Brintrup (2022). Towards knowledge graph reasoning for supply chain risk management using graph neural networks. International Journal of Production Research\/ , 1--17

    2022

  37. [45]

    u blb \"o ck, K. (2013). The eu raw materials initiative: Scope and critical assessment. Technical report, \

    K \"u blb \"o ck, K. (2013). The eu raw materials initiative: Scope and critical assessment. Technical report, \"O FSE Briefing Paper

    2013

  38. [46]

    Lan, Z., M. Chen, S. Goodman, K. Gimpel, P. Sharma, and R. Soricut (2019). Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942\/

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Liu, Y., M. Ott, N. Goyal, J. Du, M. Joshi, D. Chen, O. Levy, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, and V. Stoyanov (2019). Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692\/

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Coenen, C

    Louie, R., A. Coenen, C. Z. Huang, M. Terry, and C. J. Cai (2020). Novice-ai music co-creation via ai-steering tools for deep generative models. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pp.\ 1--13

    2020

  41. [49]

    Iannelli, and C

    Martino, A., M. Iannelli, and C. Truong (2023). Knowledge injection to counter large language model (llm) hallucination. In European Semantic Web Conference , pp.\ 182--185. Springer

    2023

  42. [50]

    Meiyappan, P. and M. Bales (2021). Position paper: Reducing amazon’s packaging waste using multimodal deep learning. Amazon Science\/

    2021

  43. [51]

    Empower your organization with copilot

    Microsoft (2023). Empower your organization with copilot. (accessed: 13.11.2024)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Mohammed, M. Y. and M. J. Skibniewski (2023). The role of generative ai in managing industry projects: Transforming industry 4.0 into industry 5.0 driven economy. Law and Business\/ 3\/ (1), 27--41

    2023

  45. [53]

    Lafond, P

    Mungo, L., F. Lafond, P. Astudillo-Est \'e vez, and J. D. Farmer (2023). Reconstructing production networks using machine learning. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control\/ 148 , 104607

    2023

  46. [54]

    Shoeybi, J

    Narayanan, D., M. Shoeybi, J. Casper, P. LeGresley, M. Patwary, V. Korthikanti, D. Vainbrand, P. Kashinkunti, J. Bernauer, B. Catanzaro, et al. (2021). Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm. In Proceedings of the International Conferen...

    2021

  47. [55]

    Noy, S. and W. Zhang (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science\/ 381\/ (6654), 187--192

    2023

  48. [56]

    Ooi, K.-B., G. W.-H. Tan, M. Al-Emran, M. A. Al-Sharafi, A. Capatina, A. Chakraborty, Y. K. Dwivedi, T.-L. Huang, A. K. Kar, V.-H. Lee, et al. (2023). The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. Journal of Compute...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Open AI (2022). Dall.e2. (accessed: 11.11.2024)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Chatgpt -- release notes

    Open AI (2024). Chatgpt -- release notes. (accessed: 11.11.2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Rockt \"a schel, S

    Petroni, F., T. Rockt \"a schel, S. Riedel, P. Lewis, A. Bakhtin, Y. Wu, and A. Miller (2019). Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural La...

    2019

  52. [60]

    Pichler, A., C. Diem, A. Brintrup, F. Lafond, G. Magerman, G. Buiten, T. Y. Choi, V. M. Carvalho, J. D. Farmer, and S. Thurner (2023). Building an alliance to map global supply networks. Science\/ 382\/ (6668), 270--272

    2023

  53. [61]

    Sriram, P

    Pratap, V., A. Sriram, P. Tomasello, A. Hannun, V. Liptchinsky, G. Synnaeve, and R. Collobert (2020). Massively multilingual asr: 50 languages, 1 model, 1 billion parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03001\/

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Reimers, N. and I. Gurevych (2019, 11). Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics

    2019

  55. [63]

    Barbosa, D

    Rossi, A., D. Barbosa, D. Firmani, A. Matinata, and P. Merialdo (2021). Knowledge graph embedding for link prediction: A comparative analysis. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD)\/ 15\/ (2), 1--49

    2021

  56. [64]

    6 ways generative ai is boosting logistics

    Ryder System (2024). 6 ways generative ai is boosting logistics. (accessed: 11.11.2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Safavi, T. and D. Koutra (2021). Relational world knowledge representation in contextual language models: A review. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp.\ 1053--1067

    2021

  58. [66]

    Zhang, E

    Shin, H.-C., Y. Zhang, E. Bakhturina, R. Puri, M. Patwary, M. Shoeybi, and R. Mani (2020). Biomegatron: larger biomedical domain language model. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pp.\ 4700--4706

    2020

  59. [67]

    Patwary, R

    Shoeybi, M., M. Patwary, R. Puri, P. LeGresley, J. Casper, and B. Catanzaro (2019). Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053\/

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Srivastava, S. K., S. Routray, S. Bag, S. Gupta, and J. Z. Zhang (2024). Exploring the potential of large language models in supply chain management: A study using big data. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM)\/ 32\/ (1), 1--29

    2024

  61. [69]

    Zheng, J

    Su, Z., X. Zheng, J. Ai, Y. Shen, and X. Zhang (2020). Link prediction in recommender systems based on vector similarity. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications\/ 560 , 125154

    2020

  62. [70]

    Tan, Y., Z. Zhou, H. Lv, W. Liu, and C. Yang (2024). Walklm: A uniform language model fine-tuning framework for attributed graph embedding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ 36

    2024

  63. [71]

    Lavril, G

    Touvron, H., T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi \`e re, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, et al. (2023). Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971\/

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Shazeer, N

    Vaswani, A., N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, . Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin (2017). Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pp.\ 6000--6010

    2017

  65. [73]

    Huang, Y

    Wang, W., Y. Huang, Y. Wang, and L. Wang (2014). Generalized autoencoder: A neural network framework for dimensionality reduction. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , pp.\ 490--497

    2014

  66. [74]

    Wang, W., F. Wei, L. Dong, H. Bao, N. Yang, and M. Zhou (2020). Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ 33 , 5776--5788

    2020

  67. [75]

    Brintrup, S

    Wichmann, P., A. Brintrup, S. Baker, P. Woodall, and D. McFarlane (2018). Towards automatically generating supply chain maps from natural language text. IFAC-PapersOnLine\/ 51\/ (11), 1726--1731

    2018

  68. [76]

    Yang, L. and A. Shami (2020). On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice. Neurocomputing\/ 415 , 295--316

    2020

  69. [77]

    Leskovec, and P

    Yasunaga, M., J. Leskovec, and P. Liang (2022). Linkbert: Pretraining language models with document links. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pp.\ 8003--8016

    2022

  70. [78]

    Yegnanarayana, B. (2009). Artificial neural networks . PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd

    2009

  71. [79]

    Zareie, A. and R. Sakellariou (2020). Similarity-based link prediction in social networks using latent relationships between the users. Scientific Reports\/ 10\/ (1), 20137

    2020

  72. [80]

    Zhang, C., S. R. Kuppannagari, R. Kannan, and V. K. Prasanna (2018). Generative adversarial network for synthetic time series data generation in smart grids. In 2018 IEEE international conference on communications, control, and computing technologies for smart grids (SmartGrid...

    2018

  73. [81]

    Zhao, C., X. Sun, M. Wu, and L. Kang (2024). Advancing financial fraud detection: Self-attention generative adversarial networks for precise and effective identification. Finance Research Letters\/ 60 , 104843

    2024

  74. [82]

    Kong, and A

    Zheng, G., L. Kong, and A. Brintrup (2023). Federated machine learning for privacy preserving, collective supply chain risk prediction. International Journal of Production Research\/ 61\/ (23), 8115--8132

    2023

  75. [84]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  76. [85]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  77. [86]

    u blb \"o ck, Karin , year= 2013 , institution= \

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    2003 arXiv

  78. [87]

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

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter collaboration edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key lastchecked month note number numpages organization pages publisher school series title type url urldate volume year label extra.label sort.label INTEGERS outpu...

  79. [88]

    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...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.