Scholar Recommendation Based on High-Order Propagation of Knowledge Graphs

Scholar Recommendation Based on High-Order Propagation of Knowledge Graphs

Pu Li, Tianci Li, Xin Wang, Suzhi Zhang, Yuncheng Jiang, Yong Tang
Copyright: © 2022 |Pages: 19
DOI: 10.4018/IJSWIS.297146
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

In a big data environment, traditional recommendation methods have limitations such as data sparseness and cold start, etc. In view of the rich semantics, excellent quality, and good structure of knowledge graphs, many researchers have introduced knowledge graphs into the research about recommendation systems, and studied interpretable recommendations based on knowledge graphs. Along this line, this paper proposes a scholar recommendation method based on the high-order propagation of knowledge graph (HoPKG), which analyzes the high-order semantic information in the knowledge graph, and generates richer entity representations to obtain users’ potential interest by distinguishing the importance of different entities. On this basis, a dual aggregation method of high-order propagation is proposed to enable entity information to be propagated more effectively. Through experimental analysis, compared with some baselines, such as Ripplenet, RKGE and CKE, our method has certain advantages in the evaluation indicators AUC and F1.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

In recent years, people have entered an era of information explosion, due to the rapid development of information technology. A large number of data is being generated all the time in daily life. How to use these data more effectively to facilitate our lives is an urgent problem in the field of current information science. Along this line, the recommendation system came into being and was applied in many aspects of life. From e-commerce platforms, search engines, social platforms to short video platforms, portal websites, mobile applications, etc. All of them have certain recommendation functions (such as user behavior prediction, user interest perception, etc.). Traditional recommendation systems can be roughly divided into two types: content-based recommendation and collaborative filtering-based recommendation. They provide recommendations based on the similarity of the content, the users’ interactive behavior, and so on. These two classic recommendation systems are widely used because of their better recommendation effects. However, facing the current massive amount of information, traditional recommendation methods generally suffer from data sparseness and cold start(Guo, Zhuang, Qin, Zhu, Xie, Xiong, & He, 2020). To solve these problems, many studies have introduced knowledge graphs into recommendation research, hoping to realize interpretable recommendations from the perspective of semantics.

As a kind of semantic network, knowledge graph contains rich information. A typical knowledge graph consists of nodes and edges. Nodes and edges are used to represent entities and the relationships between entities. Specifically, the knowledge graph is composed of many “subject-predicate-object” triples, which can be denoted as “(S, P, O)”. Since the knowledge graph contains rich semantic relations, it is an effective attempt to use it as the information source of the recommendation system for the interpretable recommendation. Meanwhile, as a link in the use and creation of knowledge, the academic field are filled with a large amount of knowledge. This paper takes scholars as the subject, analyzes the research fields of scholars and the relationship between different scholars, uses scholars’ knowledge to construct a knowledge graph, and recommends related scholars based on the knowledge graph, which has certain theoretical significance for grasping academic trends, scientific and technological frontiers, as well as the development of research work and the introduction of talents.

1.1 A Background Example

A real example of scholar recommendation based on knowledge graph is shown in Figure 1.

Figure1.

A Real Example of Scholar Recommendation Based on Knowledge Graph

IJSWIS.297146.f01

It can be seen from Figure 1 that when the user “User” clicks on the scholars “Tang, Y.” and “Jiang, Y.”, we can assume that “User” pays more attention to these two scholars. By observing the nodes connected with the two scholars, we can find that the two scholars have the same research fields “Data Science”, the title “Professor” and the unit “SCNU”. Therefore, based on the nodes closely connected to these three nodes, we can infer that “User” may be more interested in the scholar “Gao, M.”, because this scholar also has the same title “Professor” and the research fields “Data Science”. At the same time, it can be inferred that “User” is more interested in the scholar “Zhu, J.”. Because he has the same title “Professor”, the unit “SCNU”, and he also has the same research fields “Social Network” with one of the scholars “Tang, Y.”. In addition, the scholar “Li, J.” has the same unit “SCNU” with the two scholars, but only has the same research fields “Social Network” with one of the scholars “Tang, Y.”. Therefore, we can infer that “User” may be interested in “Li, J.”. Similarly, for the scholar “Yang, L.”, although he shares the title “Professor” with the two scholars, there is no other connection to indicate that it is related to the two scholars. Therefore, we infer that “User” is less likely to be interested in him. It can be seen that in the research of introducing the knowledge graph into the recommendation system, a more reasonable recommendation effect and certain semantic interpretability can be obtained.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 20: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 19: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2022): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2005)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing