Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Unveiling the Hidden: Movie Genre and User Bias in Spoiler Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 adding a reviewer's past spoiler behavior and the movie's genre to a graph-based detector lifts spoiler-detection F1 by 15.2 points on Kaggle and 6.1 points on LCS over the previous best method.

desk verdict A serious, code-released spoiler-detection architecture with plausible components, but the SOTA claim is undercut by a stronger LM on Kaggle and a leaky random split that lets user history boost test performance. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17834 v3 pith:AHKV3VFO submitted 2025-04-24 cs.IR cs.CL

Haokai Zhang , Shengtao Zhang , Zijian Cai , Heng Wang , Ruixuan Zhu , Zinan Zeng , Minnan Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.CL
keywords spoilerdetectionmoviegenreuserbiasdynamicgraphmixtureofexpertsattentionnetworkIMDbreviewsreviewclassification
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 spoiler detection in movie reviews has been missing two cheap signals: the genre of the movie being reviewed and the reviewer's own tendency to post spoilers. It reports that spoiler rates differ strongly by genre—plot-driven genres like Film-Noir and Adventure have more spoilers—and that a small subset of users accounts for a disproportionate share of spoiler posts. To exploit this, the paper introduces GUSD, which learns a per-user bias from a dynamic graph of review history, runs a genre-aware graph attention layer over users, reviews, and movies, and routes each review through genre-specific expert classifiers. On the standard IMDb-based benchmarks, GUSD lifts binary F1 to 80.24 on Kaggle and 75.37 on LCS, beating the previous best method by 15.2 and 6.1 points respectively. If the result holds, genre and user history are not side information but core features for content moderation on review platforms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is GUSD's three-way fusion of graph, genre, and user-history signals. RetGAT aggregates node features inside k hops with a decay factor $\delta_h = \exp(-\alpha h)$, so nearby users and movies influence a review more strongly than distant nodes while distant structure is truncated. GenreFormer pools all review and movie nodes of a genre into a genre vector, exchanges those vectors across genres with a transformer, then attaches the averaged genre vector to each node via concatenation and an MLP. GMoE routes every review to the expert MLPs of its movie's genres, bypassing learned gating in favor of explicit genre assignment. User bias comes from pre-training a dynamic graph encoder on the temporal sequence of reviews and using the user node's embedding as a feature; in the final layer the review's graph embedding, its metadata, and the user-bias vector are concatenated and classified.

What would settle it

Run GUSD with a user-disjoint split in which all reviews by a given user are kept in the same fold, and compare its F1 against MVSD. If the gap narrows to near zero or reverses, the user-bias component is exploiting review-history label leakage rather than a transferable user trait; if the gap persists, the user signal generalizes to unseen users.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that jointly modeling genre and user-specific spoiler propensity gives a large, previously unreached jump in spoiler-detection accuracy. The paper shows that spoiler prevalence varies by genre, with plot-heavy genres more often spoiled, and that users differ widely in spoiler rates. GUSD operationalizes this with three components: RetGAT, a graph attention network that aggregates features over k-hop neighborhoods with exponential decay; GenreFormer, which builds a per-genre representation from all review and movie nodes of that genre and lets genres exchange information through a transformer; and GMoE, a genre-conditional mixture of experts that assigns each review to the experts of the genres its movie belongs to. User bias is pre-trained separately by encoding the stream of user-review-movie events with a dynamic graph encoder and keeping the resulting user embedding. Fusing these signals, GUSD reports a binary F1 of 80.24 on Kaggle and 75.37 on LCS, exceeding MVSD, the previous best, by 15.2 and 6.1 points, with the ablation studies attributing the gain to the user-bias vector and genre routing rather than to the graph backbone alone.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation splits reviews randomly (7:2:1), so the same users and movies appear in training and test; the user-bias vector for a test review is built from that user's labeled training reviews, and for a brand-new user with no history the bias signal would be unavailable, which would likely shrink GUSD's advantage over text-only methods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spoiler-detection services can improve accuracy without new text models by feeding in the movie's genre tags and the reviewer's past spoiler rate.
  • Dynamic graph encoders trained on review streams can extract a reusable user trait that predicts spoiler posting on unseen reviews of the same user.
  • Explicit genre-based routing of reviews to specialized classifiers beats learned routing (standard MoE and Soft-MoE) on this task, suggesting that hard domain labels are useful for expert assignment.
  • The reported F1 of 80.24 on Kaggle and 75.37 on LCS sets a new reference point for future spoiler-detection work, and the released code allows direct comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The random 7:2:1 split means each user appears in training before test, so the user-bias embedding can read that user's labeled history; a user-disjoint split would likely shrink the reported gain and is the right next experiment.
  • The same user-history graph could generalize to other per-user moderation tasks, such as detecting spam or harassment, where posting history is a stable trait; that extension is untested here.
  • If genre routing is the real driver, then using a lightweight genre classifier at deployment could make GUSD work on platforms without explicit genre tags; the paper does not evaluate that transfer.
  • The authors' corrected k-hop neighbor computation may matter beyond this paper, since prior multi-hop GNNs relied on the matrix-power approximation; an isolated ablation would show how much of the gain comes from that correction alone.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GUSD, a spoiler detection framework that combines genre-aware modules (GenreFormer and GMoE) with user bias extracted from dynamic graph modeling of review history. The framework is evaluated on the LCS and Kaggle datasets against 14 baselines. GUSD reports state-of-the-art results, improving binary F1 by 15.2 points on Kaggle and 6.1 points on LCS over the previous best method MVSD. The paper provides ablations, robustness studies, and case studies, and it releases source code.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, GUSD would be a meaningful advance: it is the first spoiler detector to combine dynamic-graph user bias with genre-aware mixture-of-experts routing, and the reported gains over strong graph baselines are large. The paper's strengths include releasing code, running five runs and reporting standard deviations, and providing ablations. However, the central SOTA claim is currently weakened by two evaluation confounds: the random review split lets the model exploit overlapping user histories at test time, and on Kaggle GUSD uses a stronger text encoder (Bge-Large) than the GNN baselines (RoBERTa). The magnitude of the reported gains therefore cannot be attributed to the proposed architecture alone without additional controlled experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 / Sec. 3.2] Section 4.1 states that reviews are randomly split 7:2:1. Because users and movies appear in both training and test, the graph built in Section 3.2 (edges E2/E3) connects each test review to a user node that also has edges to that user's labeled training reviews; the user-bias vector from dynamic graph pretraining (Section 3.1) is likewise estimated from the same user's review history. The classifier can therefore use the user's observed spoiler rate as a test-time feature. The ablation in Table 2 (w/o U_b) removes only the explicit bias vector, not the graph connections, so it does not estimate performance for unseen users. Please report results on a user-disjoint split (and ideally a movie-disjoint split), or explicitly restrict the SOTA claim to platforms with known user histories.
  2. [Table 5 / Table 1] Table 5 shows that on Kaggle GUSD uses Bge-Large as its text encoder, while the GNN baselines (including MVSD) use RoBERTa; the text-encoder gap is a confound for the 15.2-point F1 improvement in Table 1. Please add a controlled comparison, e.g., GUSD with RoBERTa on Kaggle or MVSD with Bge-Large, to separate the contribution of the proposed architecture from that of the encoder.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 / Appendix] Section 3.1 says user bias is obtained by converting the static dataset into a dynamic event stream and pretraining DyGFormer with link prediction, but neither the event-stream construction nor the link-prediction training (negative sampling, temporal split, loss) is described, so the user-bias component is not reproducible from the paper. The supplementary material also does not provide these details.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The reported gains of 15.2% and 6.1% are percentage-point differences, not relative percentages; please correct the wording.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (9)-(11)] The notation overloads the symbols U, R, and M: the left-hand sides are node representations after a TRM, while the right-hand sides redefine the same symbols with an MLP; please use distinct notation.
  3. [Table 6 / Sec. 4.1] Table 6 lists 'genres' as unavailable for LCS, which seems to contradict Section 4.1's statement that both datasets include genre information; please clarify how genres were obtained for LCS.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The claim of statistical significance in Section 4.2 is not backed by any significance test; please report confidence intervals or paired tests.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typos: 'dervied' in Eq. (11) and 'Catagory' in the Table 2 header.
Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is an engineering result; it does not introduce new physical or mathematical entities. Its free parameters are model hyperparameters. The main external dependencies are the dynamic graph encoder and pre-trained embeddings.

free parameters (5)
  • decay factor α (RetGAT) = 0.3
    Controls exponential decay in k-hop aggregation; chosen by hand for both datasets.
  • RetGAT hop number k = 2
    Number of hops aggregated; set to 2 on both datasets.
  • GMoE expert count = 21 (Kaggle), 28 (LCS)
    Set to the number of IMDb genres in each dataset.
  • CrossEntropy loss weight = 1.3
    Chosen by hand for class imbalance.
  • Neighbor sampling ratio r
    Mentioned in Appendix D but no value given; affects computational scaling.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DyGFormer dynamic graph encoder captures user spoiler-posting tendency from review history via link prediction.
    Section 3.1 relies on this to produce user bias; no independent validation that link prediction on this graph encodes spoiler propensity beyond Table 3's internal probe.
  • domain assumption IMDb genre labels are sufficient and accurate for modeling genre-specific spoiler patterns.
    Section 3.2 GenreFormer and Section 3.4 GMoE route exclusively on genre; genre errors or multi-genre averaging could dilute the signal.
  • domain assumption The graph built with Movie->Review->User edges and review features is an adequate relational encoding of the review context.
    Section 3.2 graph construction; no comparison to alternate edge directions or edge features.
  • standard math Pre-trained LM embeddings (Bge-Large/RoBERTa) contain enough semantic information for spoiler detection.
    Assumed as the foundation of textual features; standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Hidden: Movie Genre and User Bias in Spoiler Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHKV3VFO

@misc{pith2026250417834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Hidden: Movie Genre and User Bias in Spoiler Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHKV3VFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17834}
}
read the original abstract

Spoilers in movie reviews are important on platforms like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, offering benefits and drawbacks. They can guide some viewers' choices but also affect those who prefer no plot details in advance, making effective spoiler detection essential. Existing spoiler detection methods mainly analyze review text, often overlooking the impact of movie genres and user bias, limiting their effectiveness. To address this, we analyze movie review data, finding genre-specific variations in spoiler rates and identifying that certain users are more likely to post spoilers. Based on these findings, we introduce a new spoiler detection framework called GUSD (The code is available at https://github.com/AI-explorer-123/GUSD) (Genre-aware and User-specific Spoiler Detection), which incorporates genre-specific data and user behavior bias. User bias is calculated through dynamic graph modeling of review history. Additionally, the R2GFormer module combines RetGAT (Retentive Graph Attention Network) for graph information and GenreFormer for genre-specific aggregation. The GMoE (Genre-Aware Mixture of Experts) model further assigns reviews to specialized experts based on genre. Extensive testing on benchmark datasets shows that GUSD achieves state-of-the-art results. This approach advances spoiler detection by addressing genre and user-specific patterns, enhancing user experience on movie review platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustrative example of the data used in our spoiler detection study. The image shows a review of the movie Moana, including the movie’s genres (Adventure, Animation), summary, the review’s content, and user-specific details. All reviews from the user are color-coded: blue indicates non-spoiler content, while red indicates spoiler content. Existing spoiler detection methods primarily focus on the textual content … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Spoiler rate across different movie genres (partial) in LCS dataset. (b) Kernel density estimation plot and distribution histogram of spoiler across different users. – Diverse Genres. Previous works have largely ignored the impact of movie genres on the spoiler rate. Our analysis of the dataset indicates substantial differences in spoiler rate across genres, with specific categories defined ac￾cording to IMDb st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our proposed GUSD framework, which integrates genre-specific in￾formation, user behavior bias, and global perceptive RetGAT for spoiler detection. It preprocesses movie, user, and review data with MLP and language models, and captures user bias via dynamic graph modeling. Then the data is processed by the R2GFormer component. An Aggregator merges these features, and then GMoE as￾signs reviews to experts … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of different numbers of experts in traditional MoE and Soft-MoE. Note that 21 is the number of genres. The results indicate that GMoE outperforms other variants irrespective of the number of experts. t-SNE Genres Action Adventure Animation Biogra…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: T-SNE visualization of the features processed by GMoE. Different colors rep￾resent different genres, indicating distinct clustering of features according to genres. F1, AUC, and Accuracy for each configuration. The results are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: When randomly removing edges from the graph, randomly setting elements of graph features to zero, and reducing the number of labeled samples in the training set, the performance of GUSD gradually declines with these incremental ablations. However, the fact that the mod…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advances in neu- ral information processing systems29(2016)

    Atwood, J., Towsley, D.: Diffusion-convolutional neural networks. Advances in neu- ral information processing systems29(2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Spoiler Alert: Using Natural Language Processing to Detect Spoilers in Book Reviews

    Bao,A.,Ho,M.,Sangamnerkar,S.:Spoileralert:Usingnaturallanguageprocessing to detect spoilers in book reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.03882 (2021)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology50(1), 1–9 (2013)

    Boyd-Graber, J., Glasgow, K., Zajac, J.S.: Spoiler alert: Machine learning ap- proaches to detect social media posts with revelatory information. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology50(1), 1–9 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining

    Cai, Z., Tan, Z., Lei, Z., Zhu, Z., Wang, H., Zheng, Q., Luo, M.: Lmbot: distilling graph knowledge into language model for graph-less deployment in twitter bot de- tection. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. pp. 57–66 (2024) 16 H.Zhang et al

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    In: The world wide web conference

    Cao, Y., Wang, X., He, X., Hu, Z., Chua, T.S.: Unifying knowledge graph learning and recommendation: Towards a better understanding of user preferences. In: The world wide web conference. pp. 151–161 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    In: Advances in Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining: 22nd Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2018, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 3-6, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 22

    Chang, B., Kim, H., Kim, R., Kim, D., Kang, J.: A deep neural spoiler detection model using a genre-aware attention mechanism. In: Advances in Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining: 22nd Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2018, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 3-6, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 22. pp. 183–195. Springer (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    "Killing Me" Is Not a Spoiler: Spoiler Detection Model using Graph Neural Networks with Dependency Relation-Aware Attention Mechanism

    Chang, B., Lee, I., Kim, H., Kang, J.: " killing me" is not a spoiler: Spoiler detec- tion model using graph neural networks with dependency relation-aware attention mechanism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05972 (2021)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    Devlin, J.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language un- derstanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Fan, Q., Huang, H., Chen, M., Liu, H., He, R.: Rmt: Retentive networks meet vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 5641–5651 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 23(120), 1–39 (2022)

    Fedus,W.,Zoph,B.,Shazeer,N.:Switchtransformers:Scalingtotrillionparameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. Journal of Machine Learning Research 23(120), 1–39 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428 (2019)

    Fey, M., Lenssen, J.E.: Fast graph representation learning with pytorch geometric. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Golbeck, J.: The twitter mute button: a web filtering challenge. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 2755–2758 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics (Coling 2010)

    Guo,S.,Ramakrishnan,N.:Findingthestoryteller:automaticspoilertaggingusing linguistic cues. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics (Coling 2010). pp. 412–420 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543 (2021)

    He, P., Gao, J., Chen, W.: Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra- style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the web conference 2020

    Hu, Z., Dong, Y., Wang, K., Sun, Y.: Heterogeneous graph transformer. In: Pro- ceedings of the web conference 2020. pp. 2704–2710 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

    Jeon, S., Kim, S., Yu, H.: Don’t be spoiled by your friends: Spoiler detection in tv program tweets. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. vol. 7, pp. 681–684 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    Kipf, T.N., Welling, M.: Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 (2019)

    Lewis, M.: Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692364(2019)

    Liu, Y.: Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692364(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Liu, Y., Tan, Z., Wang, H., Feng, S., Zheng, Q., Luo, M.: Botmoe: Twitter bot de- tection with community-aware mixtures of modal-specific experts. In: Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. pp. 485–495 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Psy- chological bulletin116(1), 75 (1994)

    Loewenstein, G.: The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psy- chological bulletin116(1), 75 (1994)

    1994

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

    Lv, Q., Ding, M., Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Feng, W., He, S., Zhou, C., Jiang, J., Dong, Y., Tang, J.: Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and Unveiling the Hidden: Movie Genre and User Bias in Spoiler Detection 17 refining heterogeneous graph neural networks...

    2021

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12349 (2021)

    Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Rajagopal, D., Clark, P., Yang, Y., Hovy, E.: Think about it! improving defeasible reasoning by first modeling the question scenario. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12349 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Misra,R.:IMDBSpoilerDataset.https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/rmisra/imdb- spoiler-dataset (2019), accessed: 2025-06-11

    2019

  17. [25]

    Nakamura, S., Tanaka, K.: Temporal filtering system to reduce the risk of spoiling a user’senjoyment.In:Proceedingsofthe12thinternationalconferenceonIntelligent user interfaces. pp. 345–348 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Neural Networks130, 195–205 (2020)

    Nikolentzos, G., Dasoulas, G., Vazirgiannis, M.: K-hop graph neural networks. Neural Networks130, 195–205 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Advances in neural information processing sys- tems32(2019)

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., et al.: Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems32(2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    the Journal of machine Learning research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., et al.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00951 (2023)

    Puigcerver,J.,Riquelme,C.,Mustafa,B.,Houlsby,N.:Fromsparsetosoftmixtures of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00951 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Rampášek, L., Galkin, M., Dwivedi, V.P., Luu, A.T., Wolf, G., Beaini, D.: Recipe forageneral,powerful,scalablegraphtransformer.AdvancesinNeuralInformation Processing Systems35, 14501–14515 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Rau, D.: Sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts pytorch implementation (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    In: The semantic web: 15th international conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3–7, 2018, proceedings 15

    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: 15th international conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3–7, 2018, proceedings 15. pp. 593–607...

    2018

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538 (2017)

    Shazeer, N., Mirhoseini, A., Maziarz, K., Davis, A., Le, Q., Hinton, G., Dean, J.: Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08621 (2023)

    Sun, Y., Dong, L., Huang, S., Ma, S., Xia, Y., Xue, J., Wang, J., Wei, F.: Retentive network: A successor to transformer for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08621 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017)

    Veličković, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Lio, P., Bengio, Y.: Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13416 (2019)

    Wan, M., Misra, R., Nakashole, N., McAuley, J.: Fine-grained spoiler detection from large-scale review corpora. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13416 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14332 (2020)

    Wang, G., Ying, R., Huang, J., Leskovec, J.: Multi-hop attention graph neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14332 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Wang, H., Zhang, W., Bai, Y., Tan, Z., Feng, S., Zheng, Q., Luo, M.: Detecting spoilers in movie reviews with external movie knowledge and user networks. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 16035–16050 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations

    Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., Funtowicz, M., et al.: Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: s...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Wróblewska, A., Rzepiński, P., Sysko-Romańczuk, S.: Spoiler in a textstack: How much can transformers help? arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.12913 (2021) 18 H.Zhang et al

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Xiao, S., Liu, Z., Zhang, P., Muennighof, N.: C-pack: packaged resources to advance general chinese embedding. 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07597 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Key Information

    Yu, L., Sun, L., Du, B., Lv, W.: Towards better dynamic graph learning: New ar- chitecture and unified library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 67686–67700 (2023) Unveiling the Hidden: Movie Genre and User Bias in Spoiler Detection 19 A Implementation Det...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.