Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kai-Chin Hsu
dblp:308/6057
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph representation learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | 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 |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph RepresentationsabstractPrediction 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 |
AAAI | 4 |