A Mixture Imputation-Boosted Collaborative Filter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommendation systems suggest products to users. Collaborative filtering (CF) systems, which base those recommendations on a database of previous ratings by various users and products, have been proven to be very effective. Since this database is typically very sparse, we consider first imputing the missing values, then making predictions based on that completed dataset. In this paper, we apply several standard imputation techniques within the framework of imputation-boosted collaborative filtering (IBCF). Each technique passes that imputed rating data to a traditional Pearson correlation-based CF algorithm, which uses that information to produce CF predictions. We also propose a novel mixture IBCF algorithm, IBCF-NBM, that uses either naïve Bayes or mean imputation, depending on the sparsity of the original CF rating dataset. Our empirical results show that IBCFs are fairly accurate on CF tasks, and that IBCF-NBM significantly outperforms a representative hybrid CF system, content-boosted CF algorithm, as well as other IBCFs that use standard imputation techniques. 1.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".