Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Learn to Unlearn: Meta-Learning-Based Knowledge Graph Embedding Unlearning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a meta-learning framework called MetaEU can unlearn specific triples from knowledge graph embeddings—even for entities never seen in training—by generating replacement embeddings, while preserving the model's…

desk verdict Novel meta-learning framework for KG embedding unlearning, but the headline claim about unseen entities is not tested; the paper needs revision before the claim can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00881 v1 pith:SJBHAYI5 submitted 2024-12-01 cs.AI

Naixing Xu , Qian Li , Xu Wang , Bingchen Liu , Xin Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords knowledgegraphembeddingmachineunlearningmeta-learningunseenentitieslinkpredictionprivacyensemblelearningrelation-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

Knowledge graphs power link prediction and question answering, but once an embedding model has trained on a triple, deleting that triple from the database does not remove its influence from the model. The paper proposes MetaEU, a meta-learning framework whose goal is to unlearn specific triples by generating replacement embeddings that dilute the forgotten knowledge while keeping the model's performance on the remaining triples intact. Its distinctive claim is generalization: because training simulates unlearning tasks on subgraphs whose entities are treated as unseen, the trained framework can handle unlearning requests involving entities never seen during training, a case existing KGE unlearning methods do not cover. Across TransE, DistMult, ComplEx, and RotatE, the unlearned embeddings score lowest on the forget set while remaining comparable to the original on the test set.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unlearning function $F_u(E, T_f, \theta) \to E'$ implemented by two entity-embedding generators. RAEEG (Relation-Aware Entity Embedding Generator) computes each entity's initial embedding as the mean of its incoming and outgoing relation embeddings, coding the entity's type without storing the entity's identity. NEEM (Neighbor-Enhanced Embedding Modulator) then runs $L$ layers of relation-aware graph convolution (following R-GCN) over the entity's neighborhood and combines all layers with a learned hierarchical integrator. Ensemble learning (minimizing loss $L_1$ on the query set) and ensemble unlearning (maximizing loss $L_2$ on the forgetting set) are combined into $L_3$, with $L_4$ constraining forgetting strength and $L_5$ fine-tuning per graph; the meta-loss makes this whole generator transfer across tasks.

What would settle it

Take a trained MetaEU and ask it to unlearn triples on a second knowledge graph whose relation vocabulary or entity types do not appear in the training subgraphs (for example, a biomedical graph after training on FB15k-237). If the Forget-set Hits@10 does not fall below the retrained baseline while Test-set metrics remain comparable, the claim of generalizing to unseen entities is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unlearning can be cast as a task-level learning problem rather than a per-model data-deletion problem. MetaEU is trained under a bi-level meta-learning loop: k subgraphs are extracted from the knowledge graph, the entities inside each subgraph are treated as unseen, and each subgraph is split into a support set and a query set. The support set is used to generate replacement entity embeddings through two modules—RAEEG, which averages the embeddings of an entity's ingoing and outgoing relations, and NEEM, which refines the result by aggregating multi-hop neighbor information in the style of relational graph convolution and then hierarchically integrating layers. An ensemble of such base generators is trained so that the query-set loss on retained triples is minimized (learning) while the query-set loss on forgotten triples is maximized (unlearning), with a balancing loss to prevent over-forgetting. The output $E'$ then satisfies the paper's criteria: on the remaining set its performance is close to the original embedding and above a retrained model, while on the forgetting set it falls below both.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that subgraphs cut from the training knowledge graph are a faithful stand-in for every future unlearning request, so that entities labeled 'unseen' during meta-training share the same relation patterns and neighborhood structure as truly unseen entities in deployment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployed service can honor deletion requests without retraining from scratch: a trained MetaEU produces replacement embeddings for a new forget set quickly, shifting the cost to a one-time meta-training phase.
  • The unlearning mechanism is agnostic to the base KGE model, working for TransE, DistMult, ComplEx, and RotatE, so swapping the embedding model does not require rebuilding the unlearning module.
  • Entities that appear only after deployment are in scope, because the generator uses relation types and neighborhood structure rather than stored entity identities.
  • Forget-set performance drops below both the original and retrained embeddings, which is the paper's criterion for the influence of the targeted triples being eliminated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct cross-graph test—training on FB15k-237 subgraphs and unlearning on a second knowledge graph with unseen relation types or entity types—would reveal whether the generalization claim comes from meta-learning itself or from the benchmark's homogeneity.
  • The paper does not report whether replacement embeddings are stable across repeated unlearning runs or whether a downstream attacker could reconstruct forgotten triples from the modified embedding matrix; measuring reconstruction success would test whether the unlearning is genuinely removing influence or only suppressing rank-based signals.
  • Because RAEEG averages relations and NEEM aggregates neighbors, entities with very sparse neighborhoods may receive generic replacement embeddings; a stress test on low-degree entities could expose the boundary of the method.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MetaEU, a meta-learning-based framework for knowledge graph embedding (KGE) unlearning. MetaEU generates replacement embeddings for entities in a forgetting set, using a Relation-Aware Entity Embedding Generator (RAEEG) and a Neighbor-Enhanced Embedding Modulator (NEEM), combined with ensemble learning and ensemble unlearning. The method is evaluated on FB15k-237 across four KGE models (TransE, DistMult, ComplEx, RotatE). Table 1 reports that after unlearning, performance on the forgetting set drops below both the original and retrained models, while performance on the test set remains close to the original. The paper also compares MetaEU with FedLU on unlearning tasks and claims that MetaEU generalizes to unseen entities and unfamiliar scenarios, a capability that existing methods lack.

Significance. If the generalization claim is validated, MetaEU would be a novel and valuable contribution to machine unlearning for knowledge graphs: it would offer a training-based alternative to retraining that can adapt to new unlearning requests without full model retraining. The meta-learning perspective on KGE unlearning is timely and the proposed modules are reasonably motivated. However, the evidence presented does not yet establish the central claim of generalization to unseen entities, because all experiments use a single dataset and the 'unseen entities' are simulated from subgraphs of the same graph. The paper also does not provide code, error bars, or statistical tests, which limits the strength of the empirical claims. The idea is promising, but the current support is insufficient for acceptance.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §5.1, §5.3, Conclusion] The central claim that MetaEU generalizes to unseen entities is not directly tested. In §4.1, the authors 'treat the entities within these subgraphs as unseen' (around Eq. 3), but this is a simulation: all entities are drawn from FB15k-237 and their relation patterns overlap with the rest of the graph. The main results in Table 1 are evaluated on the original entity set, and Figure 3(b), which is the only evidence involving 'unseen entitys,' does not state how these entities were constructed, whether they appear in any meta-training subgraph, what the final metric values are, or the variance across runs. The Conclusion explicitly claims 'MetaEU can efficiently perform KGE unlearning in unfamiliar scenarios with unseen entities,' but no experiment with a held-out entity set (e.g., entities excluded from meta-training, or a different KG) is reported. This is a load-bearing gap because the stated advantage over prior work rests entirely on this generalization.
  2. [§4.3 (Eq. 10) and §5.4 (Table 1)] The unlearning objective and the evaluation metric are confounded. The ensemble unlearning objective in Eq. (10) maximizes the KGE loss on the query set of the forgetting set, and the evaluation of unlearning success in Table 1 uses the same performance metric (Hits@n and MRR on the Forget set). Thus the observed drop in Forget-set scores is partly by construction, since the optimization directly targets that measure. The paper should provide an independent verification that the model has actually 'forgotten' the targeted knowledge, for example by measuring the rank of the forgotten triples relative to a model that never saw them, using membership inference, or evaluating on a distribution of similar unlearning requests. Without such evidence, the claimed unlearning effect is not independently established.
  3. [§5.2 and Table 1] The experimental results lack error bars and statistical tests. Section 5.2 states that experiments were conducted 10 times and averages are reported, but Table 1 reports only point estimates. For instance, in the TransE results, the Unlearned Test MRR is 0.7153 versus RAW 0.7254, and in the DistMult results, the Unlearned Forget MRR is 0.1853 versus Retrained 0.2269. These differences could easily be within run-to-run noise, especially given the small gaps. Reporting standard deviations, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests is necessary to support the claims in §5.4 that 'Unlearned exhibited the lowest performance on the Forget set' and that test performance is 'comparable to RAW.'
  4. [§5.2, §5.3, §4.3] Several experimental details essential for reproduction are missing. The paper does not specify how the forgetting set Tf was constructed (e.g., its size, whether it was random or targeted, how many triples per entity), how the k subgraphs in Eq. (3) were sampled (e.g., random walks, connected components, size distribution), or the values of hyperparameters wa and wb in Eq. (11), the number of base models N, and the number of NEEM layers L (Section 5.2 only lists the number of tasks, epochs, learning rate, and batch size). Moreover, Figure 3(b) does not describe the protocol for generating 'unseen entities.' Without these details, the experiments cannot be reproduced or the results independently assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are frequent typos and grammatical errors, including 'Seciton' (Section 3), 'entitys' (Figure 3 caption), 'forumulation' (Section 3), and 'unlearing' (Section 3). These should be corrected with a careful proofread.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5) is confusing: φ′ is not defined before its use, and the expression L_{T_support_i}(f_φ′(xj), yj) mixes set indexes with data points. Please clarify the meta-learning loss notation.
  3. [§2] Reference [15] (Meta-SGD) is a preprint with a DOI, but other references are incomplete in formatting; please ensure the bibliography is consistent and complete.
  4. [Abstract and §5.1] The abstract mentions 'benchmark datasets' (plural) and 'thorough experimental study,' but experiments are conducted only on FB15k-237. Please either add experiments on additional datasets or revise the wording to match the scope.
  5. [§5.3] The comparison with FedLU is only qualitative (Figure 3), and the diffusion-based method [8] is mentioned but never quantitatively compared. A controlled comparison on the same setup, with the same forgetting sets, would strengthen the claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor by-construction element in the Forget-set metric; core claims are not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Eq. 10 and Section 5.4, Table 1 discussion]
    "arg max_{f base,w} LensembleU = Σ_{i=1}^{N} w_i L(f base_i, T_query) ... The objective of Equation 10 is to maximize the overall loss in the query set of the forgetting set ... Unlearned exhibited the lowest performance on the Forget set ... This indicates that, through unlearning, the model effectively reduces the impact of the forgetting set."

    Eq. 10 directly optimizes (maximizes) the KGE loss on the forgetting-set query triples, so the subsequent finding that the Unlearned model has the lowest Forget-set metrics is the training objective itself, not an independent outcome. Reporting this drop as evidence that the model 'effectively reduces the impact of the forgetting set' evaluates the framework against the same function that was used to produce it. The Test-set preservation and unseen-entity claims are not circular, but the Forget-set evidence is forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's main methodological derivation is self-contained: RAEEG and NEEM are defined by explicit, standard equations (Eqs. 6-8), the meta-learning objective follows the usual support/query formulation (Eq. 5), and no load-bearing result is imported from a self-citation or from an externally asserted uniqueness theorem. The one genuinely by-construction element is the Forget-set result: the unlearning module is trained by maximizing the loss on the forgetting set (Eq. 10), and the paper then cites the resulting low Forget-set scores as evidence of effective unlearning. That part is circular in a mild sense, but it is not the central novelty. The claims about preserving Test-set performance and generalizing to unseen entities are not guaranteed by that objective and are evaluated on held-out comparisons. Note, however, that the unseen-entity generalization claim is not strongly supported by the experiments: meta-training subgraphs are extracted from the same KG and 'treated as unseen' (Eq. 3), and Table 1 reports results on the original entity set rather than a genuinely held-out entity set. That is an evidence gap and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular derivation. Overall, the core framework does not reduce to its inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; it is a composition of known techniques (meta-learning, R-GCN, ensemble). The main load-bearing assumptions are about task distribution transfer and the sufficiency of the embedding generators.

free parameters (5)
  • wa (L1 weight in Eq. 11)
    Hand-chosen balance between ensemble learning and ensemble unlearning losses; value not stated.
  • wb (L2 weight in Eq. 11)
    Hand-chosen complement to wa; value not stated.
  • Number of base models N = 4 (inferred from ablation)
    Ensemble size chosen by hand; not explicitly stated in the text.
  • NEEM layers L = 3
    Number of R-GCN layers in NEEM; set in Section 5.2.
  • Task subgraph sampling parameters
    Size of each subgraph Gi and the way tasks are sampled are not specified, affecting the meta-training distribution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The task distribution of sampled subgraphs matches real unlearning scenarios.
    Load-bearing for generalization; Section 4.1 simulates unseen entities by treating training subgraph entities as unseen.
  • domain assumption R-GCN-style aggregation captures transferable neighborhood structure.
    NEEM Eq. (7) assumes multi-hop neighboring embeddings improve generated entity embeddings.
  • domain assumption Relation-aware average of relation embeddings is a sufficient initial embedding generator.
    RAEEG uses a simple mean of in/out relation embeddings without learned weights, which may be too weak for complex entities.
  • domain assumption Link prediction ranks on the forgetting set measure unlearning effectiveness.
    The paper equates forgetting with reduced Hits/MRR on Tf; no membership inference or certified removal is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learn to Unlearn: Meta-Learning-Based Knowledge Graph Embedding Unlearning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJBHAYI5

@misc{pith2026241200881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learn to Unlearn: Meta-Learning-Based Knowledge Graph Embedding Unlearning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJBHAYI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00881}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge graph (KG) embedding methods map entities and relations into continuous vector spaces, improving performance in tasks like link prediction and question answering. With rising privacy concerns, machine unlearning (MU) has emerged as a critical AI technology, enabling models to eliminate the influence of specific data. Existing MU approaches often rely on data obfuscation and adjustments to training loss but lack generalization across unlearning tasks. This paper introduces MetaEU, a Meta-Learning-Based Knowledge Graph Embedding Unlearning framework. MetaEU leverages meta-learning to unlearn specific embeddings, mitigating their impact while preserving model performance on remaining data. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate its effectiveness in KG embedding unlearning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of meta-learning-based knowledge graph embedding unlearning. To address this, a meta-learning-based framework for knowledge graph em￾bedding unlearning is proposed. Its goal is to quickly remove the influence of specific data from the model without compromising overall performance, while also generalizing to other unlearning scenarios. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MetaEU innovatively incorporates the processes of ensemble learning and en￾semble unlearning within the meta-learning framework. The construction of the Dataset In traditional KGE methods, the model typically relies on a dataset T composed of triples. This dataset T is usually divided into two parts: a training set Ttrain and a test set Ttest (for simplicity, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , although MetaEU’s performance in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation studies on different components of MetaEU. 6 Conclusion We propose MetaEU, a novel knowledge graph embedding unlearning model based on meta-learning framework. This framework leverages meta-training regime and the entity types and relational properties within …

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. Unlearning of Knowledge Graph Embedding via Preference Optimization

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GraphDPO applies direct preference optimization to knowledge graph embedding unlearning, using out-boundary sampling and boundary recall to forget triples while retaining neighbors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Ying, X., Luo, S., Yu, M., Zhao, M., Yu, J., Guo, J., Li, X.: Two-Stage Knowl- edge Graph Completion Based on Semantic Features and High-Order Structural Features. In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 143–155. Springer Nature (2024).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2242-6_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2242-6_12 2024

  2. [2]

    In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and DataMining.pp.542–554.SpringerInternationalPublishing(2020)

    Zhao, M., Jia, W., Huang, Y.: Attention-Based Aggregation Graph Networks for Knowledge Graph Information Transfer. In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and DataMining.pp.542–554.SpringerInternationalPublishing(2020). https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-47436-2_41

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47436-2_41 2020

  3. [3]

    In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Yuan, J., Gao, N., Xiang, J., Tu, C., Ge, J.: Knowledge Graph Embedding with Order Information of Triplets. In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 476–488. Springer International Publishing (2019).https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-16142-2_37

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16142-2_37 2019

  4. [4]

    In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.pp.3–14.SpringerNatureSwitzerland(2023)

    Xie, F., Zeng, X., Zhou, B., Tan, Y.: Improving Knowledge Graph Entity Align- ment with Graph Augmentation. In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.pp.3–14.SpringerNatureSwitzerland(2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-33377-4_1

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Neurocomputing494, 203–223 (2022).https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.04.078

    Tian, Y., Zhao, X., Huang, W.: Meta-learning approaches for learning-to-learn in deep learning: A survey. Neurocomputing494, 203–223 (2022).https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.04.078

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2022.04.078 2022

  6. [6]

    In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Chen, J., Zhang, C., Hu, Z.: Meta-Reinforcement Learning Algorithm Based on Reward and Dynamic Inference. In: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 223–234. Springer Nature (2024).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-97-2259-4_17

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023

    Zhu, X., Li, G., Hu, W.: Heterogeneous Federated Knowledge Graph Embedding Learning and Unlearning. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. pp. 2444–2454. Association for Computing Machinery (2023).https://doi.org/10. 1145/3543507.3583305

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    In: Web and Big Data

    Liu, B., Fang, Y., Wang, X., Li, X.: Federated Knowledge Graph Embedding Un- learning via Diffusion Model. In: Web and Big Data. pp. 272–286. Springer Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7235-3_18

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-7235-3_18 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems

    Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., Yakhnenko, O.: Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data. In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems. vol. 26. Curran Associates, Inc. (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2014)

    Yang, B., Yih, W.t., He, X., Gao, J., Deng, L.: Embedding Entities and Relations for Learning and Inference in Knowledge Bases. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning

    Trouillon, T., Welbl, J., Riedel, S., Gaussier, E., Bouchard, G.: Complex Em- beddings for Simple Link Prediction. In: Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 2071–2080. PMLR (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

    Sun, Z., Deng, Z.H., Nie, J.Y., Tang, J.: RotatE: Knowledge Graph Embedding by Relational Rotation in Complex Space. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence38(16), 17835–17843 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1609/ aaai.v38i16.29737

    Cheng, S., Zhang, N., Tian, B., Chen, X., Liu, Q., Chen, H.: Editing Language Model-Based Knowledge Graph Embeddings. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence38(16), 17835–17843 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1609/ aaai.v38i16.29737

    2024

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Finn, C., Abbeel, P., Levine, S.: Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adapta- tion of Deep Networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 1126–1135. PMLR (2017) Learn to Unlearn: Meta-Learning-Based KGE Unlearning 15

    2017

  7. [15]

    Li, Z., Zhou, F., Chen, F., Li, H.: Meta-SGD: Learning to Learn Quickly for Few- Shot Learning (2017).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.09835

    2017 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Zintgraf, L., Shiarli, K., Kurin, V., Hofmann, K., Whiteson, S.: Fast Context Adap- tation via Meta-Learning. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 7693–7702. PMLR (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    ACM Trans

    Qiao, Z., Wang, P., Wang, P., Ning, Z., Fu, Y., Du, Y., Zhou, Y., Huang, J., Hua, X.S., Xiong, H.: A Dual-channel Semi-supervised Learning Framework on Graphs via Knowledge Transfer and Meta-learning. ACM Trans. Web18(2), 18:1–18:26 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3577033

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

    Cao, Y., Yang, J.: Towards Making Systems Forget with Machine Unlearning. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. pp. 463–480 (2015).https: //doi.org/10.1109/SP.2015.35

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Ginart, A., Guan, M., Valiant, G., Zou, J.Y.: Making AI Forget You: Data Deletion in Machine Learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 32. Curran Associates, Inc. (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition Workshops (CVPRW)

    Kim, J., Woo, S.S.: Efficient Two-stage Model Retraining for Machine Unlearn- ing. In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition Workshops (CVPRW). pp. 4360–4368 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1109/ CVPRW56347.2022.00482

    2022

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Yao, J., Chien, E., Du, M., Niu, X., Wang, T., Cheng, Z., Yue, X.: Machine Unlearning of Pre-trained Large Language Models. In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 8403–8419. Association for Compu...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    In: The Semantic Web

    Schlichtkrull, M., Kipf, T.N., Bloem, P., van den Berg, R., Titov, I., Welling, M.: Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networks. In: The Semantic Web. pp. 593–607. Springer International Publishing (2018).https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_38

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Teru, K., Denis, E., Hamilton, W.: Inductive Relation Prediction by Subgraph Rea- soning. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 9448–9457. PMLR (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.