Imputed Neighborhood Based Collaborative Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative filtering (CF) is one of the most effective types of recommender systems. As data sparsity remains a significant challenge for CF, we consider basing predictions on imputed data, and find this often improves performance on very sparse rating data. In this paper, we propose two imputed neighborhood based collaborative filtering (INCF) algorithms: imputed nearest neighborhood CF (INN-CF) and imputed densest neighborhood CF (IDN-CF), each of which first imputes the user rating data using an imputation technique, before using a traditional Pearson correlation-based CF algorithm on the resulting imputed data of the most similar neighbors or the densest neighbors to make CF predictions for a specific user. We compared an extension of Bayesian multiple imputation (eBMI) and the mean imputation (MEI) in these INCF algorithms, with the commonly-used neighborhood based CF, Pearson correlation-based CF, as well as a densest neighborhood based CF. Our empirical results show that IDN-CF using eBMI significantly outperforms its rivals and takes less time to make its best predictions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".