A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommender systems are becoming tools of choice to select the online information relevant to a given user. Collaborative filtering is the most popular approach to building recommender systems and has been successfully employed in many applications. With the advent of online social networks, the social network based approach to recommendation has emerged. This approach assumes a social network among users and makes recommendations for a user based on the ratings of the users that have direct or indirect social relations with the given user. As one of their major benefits, social network based approaches have been shown to reduce the problems with cold start users. In this paper, we explore a model-based approach for recommendation in social networks, employing matrix factorization techniques. Advancing previous work, we incorporate the mechanism of trust propagation into the model. Trust propagation has been shown to be a crucial phenomenon in the social sciences, in social network analysis and in trust-based recommendation. We have conducted experiments on two real life data sets, the public domain Epinions.com dataset and a much larger dataset that we have recently crawled from Flixster.com. Our experiments demonstrate that modeling trust propagation leads to a substantial increase in recommendation accuracy, in particular for cold start users.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".