Generating top-k packages via preference elicitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several applications, such as play lists of songs or movies, and shopping carts, where users are interested in finding top- k packages, consisting of sets of items. In response to this need, there has been a recent flurry of activity around extending classical recommender systems (RS), which are effective at recommending individual items, to recommend packages, or sets of items. The few recent proposals for package RS suffer from one of the following drawbacks: they either rely on hard constraints which may be difficult to be specified exactly by the user or on returning Pareto-optimal packages which are too numerous for the user to sift through. To overcome these limitations, we propose an alternative approach for finding personalized top- k packages for users, by capturing users' preferences over packages using a linear utility function which the system learns. Instead of asking a user to specify this function explicitly, which is unrealistic, we explicitly model the uncertainty in the utility function and propose a preference elicitation-based framework for learning the utility function through feedback provided by the user. We propose several sampling-based methods which, given user feedback, can capture the updated utility function. We develop an efficient algorithm for generating top- k packages using the learned utility function, where the rank ordering respects any of a variety of ranking semantics proposed in the literature. Through extensive experiments on both real and synthetic datasets, we demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed system for finding top- k packages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".