Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Exact rotational symmetry can be hard-wired into neural pattern completion with no fidelity cost.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Orbit-structured graph decoding completes Islamic-style vector patterns from sparse control geometry with a constructive guarantee of exact N-fold symmetry and no measurable fidelity cost on clean synthetic data.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-12 challenge →

load-bearing objection Clean constructive guarantee for exact N-fold vector completion; solid ablations, fully synthetic data, no historical corpus. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02573 v1 pith:NQ4CANEX submitted 2026-06-30 cs.CV

Symmetry-Structured Neural Completion of Islamic Geometric Patterns from Sparse Control Geometry

Hassan Ugail , Irfan Mehmood This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords symmetry-structured predictiongraph neural networksknowledge-constrained learningstructural validityIslamic geometric patternsvector graphicsrotational orbits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Islamic geometric ornament is not just a visual style; a valid instance must obey exact rotational symmetry, fixed anchors, and construction rules. This paper embeds those rules as formal geometry inside a neural completion system rather than hoping a network will learn them from data. Given sparse control points and a target symmetry order N, the system builds a candidate lattice whose edges are grouped into rotational orbits, then predicts which orbits to keep and how to refine non-structural curves. The orbit-tied decoder guarantees that every output is exactly N-fold symmetric, keeps anchors fixed, and keeps refinements inside their bounds, for any input and any orbit-level selection rule. On clean synthetic patterns, this exact validity costs nothing measurable in edge-selection fidelity. When control geometry is missing, ordinary decoding loses accuracy and breaks symmetry; training on corrupted inputs restores much of the accuracy but not exact validity. Symmetry structure and data augmentation therefore fix different failures, and together they yield completions that are both accurate and certifiably valid as scalable vector ornaments.

Core claim

Exact structural validity of Islamic-style geometric completions can be enforced by construction, without a measurable loss of edge-level fidelity on clean inputs. Organising the candidate lattice into rotational orbits under the cyclic group, then either tying predictions inside those orbits or projecting onto them at inference, produces zero selected-orbit violations, zero anchor drift, and bounded refinements for every tested pattern, while matching unstructured decoding on F1 within a pre-specified equivalence margin.

What carries the argument

Orbit structure of the candidate lattice under the cyclic group CN: candidate edges are partitioned into rotational orbits, and the orbit-tied (or projected) decoder forces scores and refinements to be constant on each orbit so that selection always yields a union of complete orbits.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee and every reported number rest on a procedurally generated candidate lattice that is closed under rotation by construction and that is taken to stand in for Islamic-geometry-inspired completions; no historical corpus is used.

What would settle it

On the same clean synthetic test set, find a paired F1 gap larger than the pre-specified two-point equivalence margin between orbit-tied and free decoding, or a single selected-orbit violation in any orbit-tied output under the label-free rotation audit.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a knowledge-constrained graph neural completion method for Islamic-geometry-inspired vector ornaments. Given sparse control geometry and a target rotational order N, a candidate lattice is built whose edges are partitioned into orbits under CN; a message-passing network predicts edge scores and bounded midpoint refinements; and symmetry is enforced either by orbit-tied averaging in the forward pass or by inference-time projection. Proposition 1 gives a constructive guarantee that the orbit-tied decoder yields exact N-fold symmetry, fixed anchors, and bounded refinements for any input and any orbit-level selection rule. Experiments on procedurally generated graphs compare orbit-tied, selection/full projection, and unstructured decoding, plus a procedural template and nearest-neighbour baseline. On clean inputs, structured and free decoders achieve comparable edge F1 (~0.52) with no measurable fidelity cost inside a pre-specified two-point margin, while only structured methods eliminate orbit violations. Under missing control features, augmentation recovers free-decoder fidelity but not exact validity; symmetry structure keeps violations at zero. The authors conclude that augmentation and orbit structure address distinct failure modes.

Significance. If the results hold under the paper's premises, this is a clear, useful contribution at the intersection of geometric deep learning, knowledge-constrained prediction, and computational ornament. The main technical value is not a new backbone but the explicit embedding of rotational orbit structure into the candidate geometry and decoder, with a short constructive guarantee (Proposition 1) and numerical audits of zero selected-orbit violations, zero anchor drift, and zero bound excess across all evaluated patterns. The controlled comparison of orbit tying versus projection, the separation of fidelity from validity, the training-control study under missing geometry, and the critique of raw overlap via the over-completing template are all carefully done. Open release of code, checkpoints, seeds, and figure pipelines further strengthens the work. The result is a concrete demonstration that exact structural validity can be enforced without sacrificing supervised edge fidelity in this setting, which is of interest beyond the specific ornamental domain.

major comments (2)
  1. §6 robustness protocol: corruption modes (including “missing control geometry”) zero or jitter network input features while the candidate lattice, orbit partition, and ground-truth targets remain clean and are always generated from the uncorrupted control geometry. The reported robustness of structured inference therefore measures resilience to degraded features over a still-perfect admissible set, not resilience when the lattice itself must be built from incomplete or damaged P. This is a load-bearing distinction for the practical claim that the method remains valid under incomplete control geometry (§7.3, §8.1). The manuscript should either (i) add experiments in which lattice generation is also driven by the corrupted/partial control geometry, or (ii) restate the robustness claims to match the actual protocol (feature corruption only) and discuss the remaining gap for real incomplete
  2. Abstract, §8.1, and §9: applied claims about Islamic geometric design, heritage, sketches/scans, and fabrication rest entirely on procedurally generated graphs (§6; no historical corpus). The technical guarantee and clean-input equivalence results are internally secure under the synthetic lattice premise, but the framing that the framework is ready for “scalable vector ornaments” in the tradition overreaches the evidence. Either include at least qualitative completions on vectorised historical control geometry (even without quantitative F1) or systematically temper heritage/practical-design language so that claims match the generator-limited style range the authors already acknowledge in §8.2.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 2 and Figure 2: report paired per-pattern differences and the pre-specified equivalence margin in the table caption or a short methods note so readers need not reconstruct them from the prose alone.
  2. Figure 3: selection projection is omitted “for contrast”; a one-line note in the caption that it matches orbit-tied at zero violations would avoid any impression of selective reporting.
  3. §4.2 / Table 1: “Projection (full)” appears in robustness tables but is less prominent in the clean main table; a single consistent naming of the four decoding regimes across all tables would help.
  4. §5 Proposition 1 proof: the argument is clear; a brief remark that orbit averaging is applied to pre-sigmoid logits (already stated) could be cross-referenced where selection policies are defined in §3.2 to avoid any ambiguity about monotone link functions.
  5. Related work: the distinction from feature-space equivariant GNNs is well made; a short pointer that output-level orbit consistency is still required after equivariant backbones (already argued) could be tightened into one sentence for readers coming from that literature.
  6. Minor presentation: arXiv-style “APREPRINT” headers and future-dated front matter are fine for preprint but should be cleaned for journal production; check consistency of “C_N” / “CN” notation and of “selected-orbit violations” terminology throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the symmetry guarantee is an explicit architectural construction, and fidelity results are ordinary held-out supervised metrics.

full rationale

The paper's central validity claim (Proposition 1) is not a fitted or empirically 'discovered' result: it follows by construction from lattice closure under CN, correct orbit IDs, orbit averaging of logits/refinements, and orbit-level selection (§5). The authors state this openly ('by construction', 'constructive guarantee', 'consequence of the architecture rather than a statement about learning') and separate validity from fidelity. Fidelity comparisons (F1, density error, paired bootstrap/Wilcoxon tests) are standard supervised evaluation on held-out procedural graphs with calibrated selection policies; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction of a closely related quantity. Self-citations ([11], [12]–[14], [20]) appear only as related-work background (shape grammars, face recognition, sketch verification, curve subdivision) and do not underwrite Proposition 1 or the fidelity–validity separation. The procedural lattice premise is a scoped modeling assumption, not a circular reduction of outputs to inputs. No equation or claim reduces a purported first-principles or predictive result to its own definition or fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central guarantee rests on a small set of geometric construction assumptions that the authors make explicit and enforce by design; free parameters are ordinary training and calibration choices that affect fidelity but not the validity claim. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • peak learning rate = 7e-4
    Set to 7e-4 with warm-up and cosine schedule; affects optimization but not the validity guarantee.
  • hidden width and message-passing rounds = 96 / 3
    Architecture hyperparameters (width 96, 3 rounds) chosen for the backbone; shared across all decoding regimes.
  • orbit-level top-K selection ratio = ~0.4 (structured), ~0.34 (free)
    Calibrated on validation data near 0.4 for structured policies; free decoding near 0.34. Affects which orbits are kept, not the guarantee that selected orbits are complete.
  • refinement bound alpha_max
    Hard bound on midpoint displacement; enforced by tanh saturation. Value is a design choice that defines the allowed refinement envelope.
  • training set size and corruption severity range = 600 graphs; [0, 0.3]
    600 training graphs; missing-geometry augmentation draws severity uniformly from [0, 30%]. Controls the empirical fidelity numbers.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The candidate edge set Ec is closed under the cyclic rotation group CN by construction of the lattice from control geometry and N.
    Stated in §3.1 and §4.1; required for Proposition 1.
  • domain assumption Orbit identifiers derived from edge type and ring/phase labels correctly partition Ec into rotational orbits.
    Standing assumption of the guarantee (§5).
  • ad hoc to paper Selection operates only on orbit-level scores (or free scores for the unstructured baseline).
    Decoder design choice that makes whole-orbit selection automatic under tying or projection.
  • domain assumption Islamic geometric patterns of interest are adequately modelled by rotational (cyclic) symmetry of order N together with the enumerated edge types on concentric rings.
    Scope limitation stated in abstract and §8.2; reflective and wallpaper symmetries are left for future work.
  • domain assumption Procedurally generated stochastic graphs over the lattice are a valid quantitative proxy for the completion task.
    All reported metrics use synthetic data only; historical corpus is explicitly not used.
invented entities (1)
  • orbit-tied decoder (score and refinement averaging over rotational orbits) no independent evidence
    purpose: Enforce exact N-fold symmetry, anchor preservation, and bounded refinement by construction during the forward pass.
    Methodological construct rather than a physical entity; independent evidence is the numerical audit of zero violations, but the entity itself is defined inside the paper.

reviewed 2026-07-12 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-Structured Neural Completion of Islamic Geometric Patterns from Sparse Control Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQ4CANEX

@misc{pith2026260702573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-Structured Neural Completion of Islamic Geometric Patterns from Sparse Control Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQ4CANEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02573}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Islamic geometric patterns are governed by exact rotational symmetry and strict construction rules. This paper treats these rules as formal geometric knowledge and embeds them in a neural completion framework, rather than leaving them to be learned statistically from data. Given sparse control geometry and a target symmetry order, the system completes the pattern as a vector graph by predicting edges and refinements of bounded curves over a candidate lattice whose edges are organised into rotational orbits under the cyclic group. Symmetry is enforced either by constraining predictions within these orbits or by projecting them onto them during inference. The orbit-tied variant provides a constructive guarantee: for any input and any orbit-level selection rule, it produces exact N-fold symmetry, preserves anchor points, and keeps all refinements within prescribed bounds. These properties are verified numerically. The study focuses on rotational symmetry, and all quantitative results are obtained from procedurally generated graphs inspired by Islamic geometric design rather than from a historical corpus. On clean inputs, enforcing exact validity produces no measurable loss in fidelity. When control geometry is missing, an unstructured decoder loses fidelity and breaks symmetry; retraining on corrupted inputs recovers much of the fidelity but not exact validity. Symmetry-structured inference, by contrast, keeps violations at zero throughout. The results show that augmentation and symmetry structure address distinct failure modes: augmentation improves fidelity under corruption, while symmetry structure guarantees validity. The framework therefore provides a knowledge-constrained, guarantee-backed approach to neural completion for scalable vector ornaments whose validity depends on exact geometric structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02573 by Hassan Ugail, Irfan Mehmood.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of symmetry-structured neural completion. Panel a shows the sparse control geometry, panel b the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Edge-selection fidelity on the in-distribution test set, shown as means over three seeds with standard deviations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Structural validity audit. Orbit-tied decoding eliminates selected-orbit violations entirely, whereas unstructured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Completions of the same control geometry at the held-out order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Robustness to imperfect control geometry across three corruption modes. The left column reports fidelity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corrupted-input training control under missing control geometry. Augmentation largely restores the fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Completed patterns rendered as scalable vector ornament without altering the predicted topology. The panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2017).Islamic Geometric Patterns: Their Historical Development and Traditional Methods of Construction

    Bonner, J. (2017).Islamic Geometric Patterns: Their Historical Development and Traditional Methods of Construction. Springer, New York.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0217-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0217-7 2017

  2. [2]

    (2019).Islamic Geometric Patterns

    Broug, E. (2019).Islamic Geometric Patterns. Revised and expanded edition. Thames and Hudson, London. ISBN 9780500294680

    2019

  3. [3]

    (1996).The Topkapı Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture

    Necipo˘glu, G. (1996).The Topkapı Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture. Getty Publications, Santa Monica. ISBN 9780892363353

    1996

  4. [4]

    J., Salman, A

    Abas, S. J., Salman, A. S. (1995).Symmetries of Islamic Geometrical Patterns. World Scientific, Singapore. ISBN 9789810217044

    1995

  5. [5]

    J., Steinhardt, P

    Lu, P. J., Steinhardt, P. J. (2007). Decagonal and quasi-crystalline tilings in medieval Islamic architecture.Science, 315(5815), 1106–1110.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135491

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1135491 2007

  6. [6]

    Grünbaum, B., Shephard, G. C. (1987).Tilings and Patterns. W. H. Freeman, New York. ISBN 9780716711933

    1987

  7. [7]

    Kaplan, C. S. (2000). Computer generated Islamic star patterns. InProceedings of Bridges 2000: Mathematical Connections in Art, Music, and Science, 105–112

    2000

  8. [8]

    S., Salesin, D

    Kaplan, C. S., Salesin, D. H. (2004). Islamic star patterns in absolute geometry.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 23(2), 97–119.https://doi.org/10.1145/990002.990003

    work page doi:10.1145/990002.990003 2004

  9. [9]

    Kaplan, C. S. (2005). Islamic star patterns from polygons in contact. InProceedings of Graphics Interface 2005, 177–185.https://doi.org/10.5555/1089508.1089538

    work page doi:10.5555/1089508.1089538 2005

  10. [10]

    Ranjazmay Azari, M., Bemanian, M., Mahdavinejad, M., Körner, A., Knippers, J. (2023). Application-based principles of Islamic geometric patterns; state-of-the-art, and future trends in computer science/technologies: a review.Heritage Science, 11, Article 22.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-022-00852-w

    work page doi:10.1186/s40494-022-00852-w 2023

  11. [11]

    Sayed, Z., Ugail, H., Palmer, I., Purdy, J., Reeve, C. (2016). Auto-parameterized shape grammar for constructing Islamic geometric motif-based structures. In Sourin, A., Gavrilova, M., Tan, C. (eds),Transactions on Computa- tional Science XXVIII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9590, 146–162. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/9...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53090-0_8 2016

  12. [12]

    Elmahmudi, A., Ugail, H. (2019). Deep face recognition using imperfect facial data.Future Generation Computer Systems, 99, 213–225.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.04.025 15 APREPRINT- JULY7, 2026

    doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.04.025 2019

  13. [13]

    M., Zehi, A

    Ugail, H., Alawar, H. M., Zehi, A. A., Alkendi, A. M., Jaleel, I. L. (2026). Evaluation of latent diffusion enhanced face recognition under forensic image degradations.Discover Computing, 29, Article 193. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10791-026-10082-4

    doi:10.1007/s10791-026-10082-4 2026

  14. [14]

    Ugail, H., Ritch-Frel, J., Matuzava, I., Stork, D. G. (2026). Verification of historical sketches via one-class learning on compact feature representations.PLOS ONE, 21(6), e0344796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0344796

    doi:10.1371/journal 2026

  15. [15]

    Huang, W., Jia, X., Zhong, X., Wang, X., Jiang, K., Wang, Z. (2023). Beyond the parts: learning coarse- to-fine adaptive alignment representation for person search.ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 19(3), Article 105.https://doi.org/10.1145/3565886

    work page doi:10.1145/3565886 2023

  16. [16]

    Ha, D., Eck, D. (2018). A neural representation of sketch drawings. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:1704.03477

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Carlier, A., Danelljan, M., Alahi, A., Timofte, R. (2020). DeepSVG: a hierarchical generative network for vector graphics animation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 16351–16361

    2020

  18. [18]

    Li, T.-M., Luká ˇc, M., Gharbi, M., Ragan-Kelley, J. (2020). Differentiable vector graphics rasterization for editing and learning.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 39(6), Article 193.https://doi.org/10.1145/3414685. 3417871

    work page doi:10.1145/3414685 2020

  19. [19]

    Reddy, P., Gharbi, M., Luká ˇc, M., Mitra, N. J. (2021). Im2Vec: synthesizing vector graphics without vector supervision. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7342–7351. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00726

    doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00726 2021

  20. [20]

    Ugail, H., Howard, N. (2026). A neural tension operator for curve subdivision across constant curvature geometries. arXiv preprintarXiv:2603.28937

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    M., Bruna, J., LeCun, Y ., Szlam, A., Vandergheynst, P

    Bronstein, M. M., Bruna, J., LeCun, Y ., Szlam, A., Vandergheynst, P. (2017). Geometric deep learning: going beyond Euclidean data.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 34(4), 18–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP. 2017.2693418

    doi:10.1109/msp 2017

  22. [22]

    Han, J., Cen, J., Wu, L., Li, Z., Kong, X., Jiao, R., Yu, Z., Xu, T., Wu, F., Wang, Z., Xu, H., Wei, Z., Zhao, D., Liu, Y ., Rong, Y ., Huang, W. (2025). A survey of geometric graph neural networks: data struc- tures, models and applications.Frontiers of Computer Science, 19, Article 1911375. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11704-025-41426-w

    2025

  23. [23]

    S., Welling, M

    Cohen, T. S., Welling, M. (2016). Group equivariant convolutional networks. InProceedings of the 33rd Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 48, 2990–2999

    2016

  24. [24]

    Kondor, R., Trivedi, S. (2018). On the generalization of equivariance and convolution in neural networks to the action of compact groups. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 80, 2747–2755

    2018

  25. [25]

    Weiler, M., Cesa, G. (2019). General E(2)-equivariant steerable CNNs. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

    2019

  26. [26]

    G., Hoogeboom, E., Welling, M

    Satorras, V . G., Hoogeboom, E., Welling, M. (2021). E(n) equivariant graph neural networks. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 139, 9323–9332

    2021

  27. [27]

    Khemani, B., Patil, S., Kotecha, K., Tanwar, S. (2024). A review of graph neural networks: concepts, architectures, techniques, challenges, datasets, applications, and future directions.Journal of Big Data, 11, Article 18. https: //doi.org/10.1186/s40537-023-00876-4

    doi:10.1186/s40537-023-00876-4 2024

  28. [28]

    N., Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N., Welling, M. (2017). Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:1609.02907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    L., Ying, R., Leskovec, J

    Hamilton, W. L., Ying, R., Leskovec, J. (2017). Inductive representation learning on large graphs. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 1024–1034

    2017

  30. [30]

    Veliˇckovi´c, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Liò, P., Bengio, Y . (2018). Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:1710.10903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Simonovsky, M., Komodakis, N. (2018). GraphV AE: towards generation of small graphs using variational autoencoders. In Kurková, V ., Manolopoulos, Y ., Hammer, B., Iliadis, L., Maglogiannis, I. (eds),Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11139, 412–422. Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01418-6_41 2018

  32. [32]

    L., Leskovec, J

    You, J., Ying, R., Ren, X., Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J. (2018). GraphRNN: generating realistic graphs with deep auto-regressive models. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 80, 5708–5717. 16 APREPRINT- JULY7, 2026

    2018

  33. [33]

    Vignac, C., Krawczuk, I., Siraudin, A., Wang, B., Cevher, V ., Frossard, P. (2023). DiGress: discrete denoising diffusion for graph generation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:2209.14734

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Diligenti, M., Gori, M., Saccà, C. (2017). Semantic-based regularization for learning and inference.Artificial Intelligence, 244, 143–165.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.08.011

    doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.08.011 2017

  35. [35]

    Nandwani, Y ., Pathak, A., Mausam, Singla, P. (2019). A primal-dual formulation for deep learning with constraints. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 12157–12168

    2019

  36. [36]

    Li, Z., Zhang, Q., Zhu, F., Li, D., Zheng, C., Zhang, Y . (2023). Knowledge graph representation learning with simplifying hierarchical feature propagation.Information Processing & Management, 60(4), Article 103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103348 17

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103348 2023

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 12, 2026.