Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Unify Graph Learning with Text: Unleashing LLM Potentials for Session Search

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By translating each search session's interaction graph into symbolic text, an LLM can re-rank documents better than the compared session search models on AOL and Tiangong-ST.

desk verdict Solid session-search paper with a real sampling problem under its headline AOL result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14156 v1 pith:M7FDGLX4 submitted 2025-05-20 cs.CV cs.AIcs.IRcs.LG

Songhao Wu , Quan Tu , Hong Liu , Jia Xu , Zhongyi Liu , Guannan Zhang , Ran Wang , Xiuying Chen
show 1 more author
Rui Yan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.IRcs.LG
keywords sessionsearchdocumentrankinglargelanguagemodelsgraph-to-textsymbolicgraphself-supervisedlearninglinkpredictioncontrastive
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

This paper proposes Symbolic Graph Ranker (SGR), a method that turns the interaction history of a search session into a heterogeneous graph, serializes that graph into symbolic text, and feeds the text to a large language model to score candidate documents. The authors claim that this combination gives an LLM both fine-grained word-level semantics and coarse-grained user-behavior structure, and that three self-supervised symbolic tasks—link prediction, node content generation, and generative contrastive learning—teach the LLM to read the graph format. On the AOL and Tiangong-ST benchmarks, SGR outperforms every compared baseline, including the graph-based HEXA model, and reaches the level of a fully trained COCA model using only about 10 percent of the training data. The point of the work is to show that graph structure in search sessions can be handled entirely inside a text-based LLM rather than by a separate graph encoder.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symbolic graph grammar SGC: a node is written as $([\text{type}][\text{id}], \text{text})$, an edge is written as $SGC_v(v_1) <\text{edge type}> SGC_v(v_2)$, and the whole session graph is the chronological concatenation of all edge strings. This flat text is what the LLM sees, so the graph is carried by edge ordering and repeated node identifiers rather than by an adjacency matrix. The three symbolic pretraining tasks (link prediction, node content generation, and generative contrastive learning) are what make the LLM sensitive to that structure, and the final ranking reuses the link-prediction format with a target query-document pair.

What would settle it

If randomizing the order of the serialized edges while keeping the same nodes and text leaves ranking performance essentially unchanged, or if replacing the symbolic graph with a plain natural-language session description gives equal performance, then the claimed topological benefit is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that session search can be reframed as symbolic link prediction in text: build a session graph with query and document nodes and three edge types (click on, query transition, document transition), translate it with a small grammar into an edge list like $(q_3, \text{MacBook Price?}) <\text{click on}> (d_5, \$1{,}999)$, and have an LLM output 'yes' or 'no' for a candidate query-document link. The probability attached to 'yes' is the relevance score used in a listwise ranking loss. The authors further claim that because LLMs were pretrained on natural text rather than this symbolic language, three self-supervised symbolic tasks are needed, and that removing either the graph serialization or the symbolic pretraining degrades performance. If these claims hold, graph structure and text semantics are not competing representations but can be unified inside one LLM.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that serializing the session graph as a chronological edge list preserves enough topological information for the LLM to reason about node proximity, and that the model's probability of the token 'yes' is a valid relevance score.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, session search can be executed by an LLM reading a text serialization of the session graph, with no separate graph neural network encoder.
  • The reported data-efficiency result implies that a small fraction of labeled sessions may suffice to match existing full-data rankers, which matters for search logs where labeled data are expensive.
  • Because the three symbolic pretraining tasks are self-supervised, unlabeled session logs could be used to adapt an LLM to a new search domain before fine-tuning on click labels.
  • The same link-prediction framing could rank documents for any query where past clicks define a graph, extending the approach beyond the two tested benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper does not test whether the grammar itself is optimal, so replacing 'click on' and 'transfer to' with different relation names, or adding edge weights, could plausibly change performance and would be a natural ablation.
  • Editorial inference: because recurring query and document nodes reappear across sessions, the pretraining phase stores a form of global graph memory inside the LLM parameters; measuring how much repeated queries benefit from this cross-session memory would sharpen the paper's efficiency claim.
  • Editorial inference: the same symbolic-graph prompting and self-supervised tasks could transfer to adjacent problems such as conversational search or recommendation, where user actions also form heterogeneous graphs.
  • Editorial inference: the reliance on the 'yes' token logit invites a direct comparison against letting the LLM generate an explicit relevance label or numeric score, which the paper does not report.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Symbolic Graph Ranker (SGR), a method that converts a session search history into a heterogeneous graph, serializes that graph into symbolic text via hand-designed grammar rules, and feeds the text to an LLM. Three self-supervised symbolic learning tasks (link prediction, node content generation, and generative contrastive learning) are used before listwise fine-tuning, where the probability of the 'yes' token is used as the relevance score. Experiments on AOL and Tiangong-ST compare SGR with BM25, MonoT5, RICR, COCA, ASE, and HEXA, reporting state-of-the-art MAP/MRR/NDCG numbers on AOL and competitive improvements on Tiangong-ST. The paper also reports ablations for each pre-training task, session-length robustness, data-efficiency results, and a perplexity curve during pre-training.

Significance. If the results hold, SGR is a meaningful advance: it combines the word-level semantic modeling of LLMs with the structural information of session graphs, and it does so with relatively little training data, matching a fully trained COCA with only 10% of the training data. The paper releases code, reports ablations for each of the three symbolic learning tasks, and compares against several external baselines, which are strengths. The main limitation is that the headline AOL result is evaluated on a single 1,000-session subsample, and the paper does not document whether the baselines were scored on the same subsample; this directly affects the central state-of-the-art claim. The Tiangong-ST results and the ablations partially mitigate the risk, but they do not fully resolve the AOL comparison issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Table 2] The AOL evaluation is performed on only 1,000 randomly selected sessions from a 29,369-session test set, but the paper does not report the random seed, the number of random draws, or whether all baselines in Table 2 were re-run on exactly the same 1,000-session subset. If the baseline numbers (HEXA 0.5700 MAP, COCA 0.5649, etc.) are taken from prior full-test-set publications while SGR is scored on a subsample, the comparison is not apples-to-apples and the paired t-test with Bonferroni correction is not valid, because the paired structure across systems on the same sessions is not established. The reported margin over HEXA (0.5859 vs 0.5700 MAP, about 2.8% relative) is small enough that a single subsample could create or erase it. Please specify the evaluation protocol, report variance or confidence intervals, and either re-run all baselines on the identical subset or evaluate SGR on the full AOL test set.
  2. [§5.2, Table 4] The ablation 'SGR w/o SG' is described only as 'the session is represented by sequences strung together with delimiters,' with graph information omitted. The exact input format for this condition is not specified: it is unclear whether the same chronological edge order is used, whether edge-type symbols such as '<click on>' are removed, and whether the same node text is retained. Without this detail, the attribution of the performance drop to the loss of graph structure, rather than to a change in prompt format or tokenization, is not fully established. Please provide the precise template of the w/o SG input.
  3. [§3.4.1 and §3.5] The pre-training link-prediction objective and the downstream ranking objective share the same input construction (the symbolic graph text followed by a query-document pair) and the same yes/no token probability. Consequently, the link-prediction pre-training is closely aligned with the downstream task, and the improvement from 'Link' in Table 3 may reflect direct task alignment rather than general graph-structure comprehension. The paper should explicitly discuss this alignment and provide evidence that the pre-training stage, particularly link prediction, teaches topology rather than only the surface form of the symbolic language. The perplexity curve in Figure 5 (right) is not sufficient evidence for graph comprehension, because training perplexity can decrease even when the model merely memorizes the symbolic format. A validation-set perplexity curve, or a transfer experiment in which link prediction is replaced by a less directly aligned task, would strengthen the interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.4] The random selection of 1,000 AOL test sessions is not reproducible without a stated seed; please report the seed or the sampling procedure.
  2. [§4.4] Only AdamW, two epochs, and LoRA are mentioned as hyperparameters. Please list learning rate, LoRA rank and alpha, batch size, maximum sequence length, negative sampling ratio for link prediction, and masking strategy for node content generation, or state that they are fully specified in the released code.
  3. [§2.1] There is a typo in 'Concretley' in the second-to-last paragraph; it should be 'Concretely'.
  4. [References] References [8] and [9] appear to be the same CIKM 2022 paper by Chen et al., and reference [44] is cited as 'LLaMa-7B' but actually corresponds to the Llama 2 technical report; please reconcile these citations.
  5. [§3.5 and Eq. (4)] The text says 'the logits of the ''yes'' answer token p(X_j)' and then uses p(X_j) in the softmax denominator; please clarify that p(X_j) is the softmax-normalized probability of the 'yes' token, not a raw logit, to avoid confusion.
  6. [Figure 5 (right)] The perplexity plot shows only training-time perplexity during symbolic learning; adding a validation split or downstream ranking metrics would make the claim of successful symbolic-graph comprehension more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SGR is an empirical method whose graph-to-text design and pre-training tasks are validated by ablations and external baselines, not by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: SGR serializes a session graph into symbolic text and fine-tunes an LLM using the logits of a 'yes' token as the ranking score. The link-prediction pre-training objective in Eq. (1) and the ranking objective in Eq. (4) both use yes-token logits, so the pre-training task is closely aligned with the downstream task; however, this does not make the result circular because the downstream fine-tuning uses a listwise ranking loss over candidates, the pre-training components are individually ablated in Table 3, and the headline comparisons in Table 2 are against external baselines (RICR, COCA, ASE, HEXA). The symbolic graph is a serialization of the same session interactions rather than a fitted parameter, and the paper does not claim to derive a prediction from a first-principles theorem. The self-citations present are background references for contrastive learning and LLM capabilities; none is load-bearing for the main claim. The AOL evaluation on a randomly selected 1,000-session subsample noted in Section 4.4 is a potential statistical validity concern about whether the comparison is apples-to-apples, but it is not a circularity because no equation or result is equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

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

No explicit free parameters are reported; the model uses standard hyperparameters such as learning rate, LoRA rank, and training epochs, but values are not given in the paper. The method does not fit constants to derive a prediction. The main assumptions are domain and modeling choices about how to represent session graphs as text and how to score relevance.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A search session is best represented as a heterogeneous graph with query and document nodes and click and transition edges.
    Adopted from prior graph-based session search such as HEXA; not proven in this paper but supported by the ablation where removing the symbolic graph lowers performance.
  • domain assumption An LLM can reason about graph structure from a flat symbolic serialization of edges.
    The method assumes the linearized text preserves enough topology for the model to make link predictions; this is only indirectly supported by the perplexity curve and ablations.
  • domain assumption The probability of the output token 'yes' is an appropriate relevance score for ranking documents.
    Inspired by MonoT5 sequence-to-sequence ranking; the paper uses this without calibration experiments or comparison to other scoring approaches.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unify Graph Learning with Text: Unleashing LLM Potentials for Session Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7FDGLX4

@misc{pith2026250514156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unify Graph Learning with Text: Unleashing LLM Potentials for Session Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7FDGLX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14156}
}
read the original abstract

Session search involves a series of interactive queries and actions to fulfill user's complex information need. Current strategies typically prioritize sequential modeling for deep semantic understanding, overlooking the graph structure in interactions. While some approaches focus on capturing structural information, they use a generalized representation for documents, neglecting the word-level semantic modeling. In this paper, we propose Symbolic Graph Ranker (SGR), which aims to take advantage of both text-based and graph-based approaches by leveraging the power of recent Large Language Models (LLMs). Concretely, we first introduce a set of symbolic grammar rules to convert session graph into text. This allows integrating session history, interaction process, and task instruction seamlessly as inputs for the LLM. Moreover, given the natural discrepancy between LLMs pre-trained on textual corpora, and the symbolic language we produce using our graph-to-text grammar, our objective is to enhance LLMs' ability to capture graph structures within a textual format. To achieve this, we introduce a set of self-supervised symbolic learning tasks including link prediction, node content generation, and generative contrastive learning, to enable LLMs to capture the topological information from coarse-grained to fine-grained. Experiment results and comprehensive analysis on two benchmark datasets, AOL and Tiangong-ST, confirm the superiority of our approach. Our paradigm also offers a novel and effective methodology that bridges the gap between traditional search strategies and modern LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14156 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparing paradigms for session search: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of our model, which consists of three parts: (1) Session Graph Construction: this part organizes the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three self-supervised symbolic learning tasks to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of MAP and NDCG@3 performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) The performance of SGR with different train [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wasi Uddin Ahmad, Kai-Wei Chang, and Hongning Wang. 2018. Multi-Task Learning for Document Ranking and Query Suggestion. In Proc. of ICLR

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Wasi Uddin Ahmad, Kai-Wei Chang, and Hongning Wang. 2019. Context Atten- tive Document Ranking and Query Suggestion. In Proc. of SIGIR

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Alina Stoica, Saurabh Tiwary, and Tong Wang. 2018. MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset. arXiv:1611.09268 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Luiz Henrique Bonifacio, Vitor Jeronymo, Hugo Queiroz Abonizio, Israel Campiotti, Marzieh Fadaee, , Roberto Lotufo, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. mMARCO: A Multilingual Version of MS MARCO Passage Ranking Dataset. arXiv:2108.13897 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Biometrika 39 (1952), 324. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:125209808

    work page 1952

  6. [6]

    Lei Cai and Shuiwang Ji. 2020. A multi-scale approach for graph link prediction. In Proc. of AAAI

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Haonan Chen, Zhicheng Dou, Qiannan Zhu, Xiaochen Zuo, and Ji-Rong Wen

  8. [8]

    Haonan Chen, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Zhao Cao, Xiaohua Cheng, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Enhancing User Behavior Sequence Modeling by Generative Tasks for Session Search. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information andamp; Knowledge Management

    work page 2022

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Haonan Chen, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Zhao Cao, Xiaohua Cheng, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Enhancing User Behavior Sequence Modeling by Generative Tasks for Session Search. In Proc. of CIKM

    2022

  2. [10]

    Jia Chen, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Fan Zhang, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2021. Towards a better understanding of query reformulation behavior in web search. In Proceedings of the web conference 2021 . 743–755

    2021

  3. [11]

    Jia Chen, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2019. TianGong- ST: A new dataset with large-scale refined real-world web search sessions. In Proc. of CIKM

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proc. of ICML

    2020

  5. [13]

    Xiuying Chen, Hind Alamro, Mingzhe Li, Shen Gao, Rui Yan, Xin Gao, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2022. Target-aware Abstractive Related Work Generation with Contrastive Learning. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2022

  6. [14]

    Xiuying Chen, Mingzhe Li, Shen Gao, Rui Yan, Xin Gao, and Xiangliang Zhang

  7. [15]

    Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel S Weld

  8. [16]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proc. of NAACL

    2019

  9. [17]

    Shen Gao, Zhengliang Shi, Minghang Zhu, Bowen Fang, Xin Xin, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Jun Ma, and Zhaochun Ren. 2024. Confucius: Iterative tool learn- ing from introspection feedback by easy-to-difficult curriculum. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artif...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddings. In Proc. of EMNLP

    2021

  11. [19]

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

    2022

  12. [20]

    Xueting Han, Zhenhuan Huang, Bang An, and Jing Bai. 2021. Adaptive transfer learning on graph neural networks. In Proc. of KDD

    2021

  13. [21]

    Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. In Proc. of ICLR

    2022

  14. [22]

    Ziniu Hu, Yuxiao Dong, Kuansan Wang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Yizhou Sun. 2020. Gpt-gnn: Generative pre-training of graph neural networks. In Proc. of KDD

    2020

  15. [23]

    Xunqiang Jiang, Yuanfu Lu, Yuan Fang, and Chuan Shi. 2021. Contrastive pre- training of GNNs on heterogeneous graphs. In Proc. of CIKM

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A Python Toolkit for Reproducible Infor- mation Retrieval Research with Sparse and Dense Representations. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2021

  17. [25]

    Jiduan Liu, Jiahao Liu, Yang Yang, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2022. GNN-encoder: Learning a Dual-encoder Architecture via Graph Neural Networks for Dense Passage Retrieval. arXiv:2204.08241 [cs.IR]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing Weight Decay Regularization in Adam. ArXiv (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Yuanfu Lu, Xunqiang Jiang, Yuan Fang, and Chuan Shi. 2021. Learning to pre-train graph neural networks. In Proc. of AAAI

    2021

  20. [28]

    Shengjie Ma, Chong Chen, Jiaxin Mao, Qi Tian, and Xuhui Jiang. 2023. Session Search with Pre-Trained Graph Classification Model

    2023

  21. [29]

    Guanglin Niu, Bo Li, Yongfei Zhang, and Shiliang Pu. 2022. CAKE: A Scalable Commonsense-Aware Framework For Multi-View Knowledge Graph Completion. In Proc. of ACL

    2022

  22. [30]

    Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document Ranking with a Pretrained Sequence-to-Sequence Model. In Proc. of EMNLP Findings

    2020

  23. [31]

    Liangming Pan, Alon Albalak, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2023. Logic- lm: Empowering large language models with symbolic solvers for faithful logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12295 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Greg Pass, Abdur Chowdhury, and Cayley Torgeson. 2006. A picture of search. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Scalable information systems

    2006

  25. [33]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer

  26. [34]

    Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky

  27. [35]

    Jiezhong Qiu, Qibin Chen, Yuxiao Dong, Jing Zhang, Hongxia Yang, Ming Ding, Kuansan Wang, and Jie Tang. 2020. Gcc: Graph contrastive coding for graph neural network pre-training. In Proc. of KDD

    2020

  28. [36]

    Bruce Croft, and Paul Bennett

    Chen Qu, Chenyan Xiong, Yizhe Zhang, Corby Rosset, W. Bruce Croft, and Paul Bennett. 2020. Contextual Re-Ranking with Behavior Aware Transformers. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2020

  29. [37]

    Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al . 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Corbin Rosset, Chenyan Xiong, Xia Song, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Saurabh Tiwary, and Paul Bennett. 2020. Leading conversational search by suggesting useful questions. In Proceedings of the web conference 2020 . 1160–1170

    2020

  31. [39]

    arXiv:2306.17563 [cs.IR]

    Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Prompting. arXiv:2306.17563 [cs.IR]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hongda Sun, Quan Tu, Jinpeng Li, and Rui Yan. 2023. Convntm: conversational neural topic model. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37. 13609–13617

    2023

  33. [41]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Pengjie Ren, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agent. arXiv:2304.09542 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Shubo Tian, Qiao Jin, Lana Yeganova, Po-Ting Lai, Qingqing Zhu, Xiuying Chen, Yifan Yang, Qingyu Chen, Won Kim, Donald C Comeau, et al. 2023. Opportunities and Challenges for ChatGPT and Large Language Models in Biomedicine and Health. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10070 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhiliang Tian, Wei Bi, Zihan Zhang, Dongkyu Lee, Yiping Song, and Nevin L Zhang. 2021. Learning from my friends: few-shot personalized conversation systems via social networks. In Proc. of AAAI

    2021

  36. [44]

    Xuehua Shen, Bin Tan, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2005. Context-Sensitive Informa- tion Retrieval Using Implicit Feedback. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2005

  37. [45]

    Christophe Van Gysel and Maarten de Rijke. 2018. Pytrec_eval: An extremely fast python interface to trec_eval. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2018

  38. [46]

    Shuting Wang, Zhicheng Dou, and Yutao Zhu. 2023. Heterogeneous Graph-Based Context-Aware Document Ranking. In Proc. of WSDM

    2023

  39. [47]

    White, Paul N

    Ryen W. White, Paul N. Bennett, and Susan T. Dumais. 2010. Predicting Short- Term Interests Using Activity-Based Search Context. In Proc. of CIKM

    2010

  40. [48]

    Likang Wu, Zhaopeng Qiu, Zhi Zheng, Hengshu Zhu, and Enhong Chen. 2023. Exploring Large Language Model for Graph Data Understanding in Online Job Recommendations. arXiv:2307.05722 [cs.AI] WWW ’24, May 13–17, 2024, Singapore, Singapore Songhao Wu, et al

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucu- rull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy...

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Han Xie, Da Zheng, Jun Ma, Houyu Zhang, Vassilis N Ioannidis, Xiang Song, Qing Ping, Sheng Wang, Carl Yang, Yi Xu, et al. 2023. Graph-Aware Language Model Pre-Training on a Large Graph Corpus Can Help Multiple Graph Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02592 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Aiyuan Yang, Bin Xiao, Bingning Wang, Borong Zhang, Ce Bian, Chao Yin, Chenxu Lv, Da Pan, Dian Wang, Dong Yan, Fan Yang, Fei Deng, Feng Wang, Feng Liu, Guangwei Ai, Guosheng Dong, Haizhou Zhao, Hang Xu, Haoze Sun, Hongda Zhang, Hui Liu, Jiaming Ji, Jian Xie, JunTao Dai, Kun Fa...

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Muhan Zhang and Yixin Chen. 2018. Link prediction based on graph neural networks. Proc. of NeurIPS (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Yuan Zhang, Dong Wang, and Yan Zhang. 2019. Neural IR meets graph embed- ding: A ranking model for product search. In The World Wide Web Conference. 2390–2400

    2019

  46. [54]

    Biao Xiang, Daxin Jiang, Jian Pei, Xiaohui Sun, Enhong Chen, and Hang Li. 2010. Context-Aware Ranking in Web Search. InProc. of SIGIR

    2010

  47. [55]

    Juexiao Zhou, Xiaonan He, Liyuan Sun, Jiannan Xu, Xiuying Chen, Yuetan Chu, Longxi Zhou, Xingyu Liao, Bin Zhang, and Xin Gao. 2023. SkinGPT-4: An Interactive Dermatology Diagnostic System with Visual Large Language Model

    2023

  48. [56]

    Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Jason Zhu, Yanling Cui, Yuming Liu, Hao Sun, Xue Li, Markus Pelger, Tianqi Yang, Liangjie Zhang, Ruofei Zhang, and Huasha Zhao. 2021. TextGNN: Improving Text Encoder via Graph Neural Network in Sponsored Search. InProc. of WWW

    2021

  50. [58]

    Yutao Zhu, Jian-Yun Nie, Zhicheng Dou, Zhengyi Ma, Xinyu Zhang, Pan Du, Xiaochen Zuo, and Hao Jiang. 2021. Contrastive Learning of User Behavior Sequence for Context-Aware Document Ranking. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information andamp; Knowledg...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Haiteng Zhao, Shengchao Liu, Chang Ma, Hannan Xu, Jie Fu, Zhi-Hong Deng, Lingpeng Kong, and Qi Liu. 2023. GIMLET: A Unified Graph-Text Model for Instruction-Based Molecule Zero-Shot Learning. arXiv:2306.13089 [cs.LG]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Xiaochen Zuo, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Improving Session Search by Modeling Multi-Granularity Historical Query Change. In Proc. of WSDM

    2022

  53. [64]

    Yutao Zhu, Jian-Yun Nie, Zhicheng Dou, Zhengyi Ma, Xinyu Zhang, Pan Du, Xiaochen Zuo, and Hao Jiang. 2021. Contrastive learning of user behavior sequence for context-aware document ranking. In Proc. of CIKM

    2021

  54. [2017]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch. (2017)

    2017

  55. [2020]

    SPECTER: Document-level Representation Learning using Citation- informed Transformers. In Proc. of ACL

  56. [2022]

    Scientific Paper Extractive Summarization Enhanced by Citation Graphs. In Proc. of EMNLP

  57. [2023]

    ACM Trans

    Integrating Representation and Interaction for Context-Aware Document Ranking. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.