Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Kai-Chin Hsu

dblp:308/6057 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Graph learning · 56% Trustworthy machine learning · 44%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph representation learning
0.612022
On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph Representations · AAAI 2022
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network › node classification
multi-label node classification
0.212022
On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph Representations · AAAI 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

empirical analysis · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph Representations
abstract
Prediction using the ground truth sounds like an oxymoron in machine learning. However, such an unrealistic setting was used in hundreds, if not thousands of papers in the area of finding graph representations. To evaluate the multi-label problem of node classification by using the obtained representations, many works assume that the number of labels of each test instance is known in the prediction stage. In practice such ground truth information is rarely available, but we point out that such an inappropriate setting is now ubiquitous in this research area. We detailedly investigate why the situation occurs. Our analysis indicates that with unrealistic information, the performance is likely over-estimated. To see why suitable predictions were not used, we identify difficulties in applying some multi-label techniques. For the use in future studies, we propose simple and effective settings without using practically unknown information. Finally, we take this chance to compare major graph representation learning methods on multi-label node classification.
Li-Chung Lin, Cheng-Hung Liu 0001, Chih-Ming Chen 0003, Kai-Chin Hsu, I-Feng Wu, Ming-Feng Tsai, Chih-Jen Lin
AAAI4