Cited by 785Recommender Systems and TechniquesAdvanced Graph Neural NetworksInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Explainable Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs for Recommendation

Open access
Wang, Xiang, Wang, Dingxian, Xu, Canran, He, Xiangnan, Cao, Yixin, Chua, Tat-Seng·2019·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Incorporating knowledge graph into recommender systems has attracted increasing attention in recent years. By exploring the interlinks within a knowledge graph, the connectivity between users and items can be discovered as paths, which provide rich and complementary information to user-item interactions. Such connectivity not only reveals the semantics of entities and relations, but also helps to comprehend a user’s interest. However, existing efforts have not fully explored this connectivity to infer user preferences, especially in terms of modeling the sequential dependencies within and holistic semantics of a path.In this paper, we contribute a new model named Knowledgeaware Path Recurrent Network (KPRN) to exploit knowledge graph for recommendation. KPRN can generate path representations by composing the semantics of both entities and relations. By leveraging the sequential dependencies within a path, we allow effective reasoning on paths to infer the underlying rationale of a user-item interaction. Furthermore, we design a new weighted pooling operation to discriminate the strengths of different paths in connecting a user with an item, endowing our model with a certain level of explainability. We conduct extensive experiments on two datasets about movie and music, demonstrating significant improvements over state-of-the-art solutions Collaborative Knowledge Base Embedding and Neural Factorization Machine.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33015329

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Bellini, V.; Anelli, V . W.; Noia, T. D.; and Sciascio, E. D. 2017. Auto-encoding user ratings via knowledge graphs in recommendation scenarios. In DLRS@RecSys , 60-66.
  2. Catherine, R., and Cohen, W. W. 2016. Personalized recommendations using knowledge graphs: A probabilistic logic programming approach. In RecSys , 325-332.
  3. Chen, J.; Zhang, H.; He, X.; Nie, L.; Liu, W.; and Chua, T.-S. 2017. Attentive collaborative filtering: Multimedia recommendation with item- and component-level attention. In SIGIR , 335-344.
  4. Sun, Y., and Han, J. 2012. Mining heterogeneous information networks: a structural analysis approach. SIGKDD 14(2):20-28.
  5. Sun, Y.; Han, J.; Yan, X.; Yu, P. S.; and Wu, T. 2011. Pathsim: Meta path-based top-k similarity search in heterogeneous information networks. PVLDB 4(11):992-1003.
  6. Wang, H.; Zhang, F.; Wang, J.; Zhao, M.; Li, W.; Xie, X.; and Guo, M. 2018a. Ripplenet: Propagating user preferences on the knowledge graph for recommender systems. In CIKM , 417-426.
  7. Yu, X.; Ren, X.; Gu, Q.; Sun, Y.; and Han, J. 2013. Collaborative filtering with entity similarity regularization in heterogeneous information networks. IJCAI 27.
  8. Yu, X.; Ren, X.; Sun, Y.; Gu, Q.; Sturt, B.; Khandelwal, U.; Norick, B.; and Han, J. 2014. Personalized entity recommendation: a heterogeneous information network approach. In WSDM , 283-292.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Wang, D., Xu, C., He, X., Cao, Y., & Chua, T.-S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • eBay (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2019-07-17
Volume
33
Issue
01
Pages
5329-5336
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W2966349618
Cited by
785
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 134 · 2023: 153 · 2022: 136 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 32
FWCI
74.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • National Research Foundation Singapore (AISG-100E-2018-002)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
explainable recommendation, knowledge graphs, path reasoning, user preference inference, path representation, sequential dependencies, movie recommendation, music recommendation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review