An interpretable heterogeneous graph attention network for high-value patent identification


Abstract

High-value patent identification is critical to technological innovation and industrial competitiveness, yet traditional approaches struggle to cope with the complex semantics of patent texts and multi-source heterogeneous data. This paper proposes an interpretable high-value patent identification method based on a heterogeneous graph attention network (HGATv2). The model incorporates a relation-aware multi-head attention mechanism, trainable delta word embeddings, and a multi-scale convolutional encoder to enhance the representation of deep semantic and structural information in patent documents. By constructing a heterogeneous graph with multiple node types and semantic relations, HGATv2 jointly models local textual context and cross-document global dependencies. In addition, a node feature fusion strategy and neighbour-sampling-based normalisation are introduced to alleviate semantic sparsity and structural heterogeneity. Experiments on both a public patent dataset and a private lithography patent dataset demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms strong baselines, achieving an F1 score of up to 94.90%. Furthermore, a word-level interpretability analysis is conducted by combining TF–TF-IDF-based pre-filtering with an in-graph knock-out procedure, providing clear technical-term explanations for high-value patent decisions and improving model transparency. The results indicate that HGATv2 not only performs strongly in the lithography domain but also exhibits promising cross-domain adaptability and can serve as a core component of intelligent patent screening and innovation resource optimisation systems in real-world applications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].