Celebrity recommendation with collaborative social topic regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently how to recommend celebrities to the public becomes an interesting problem on the social network websites, such as Twitter and Tencent Weibo. In this paper, we proposed a unified hierarchical Bayesian model to recommend celebrities to the general users. Specifically, we proposed to leverage both social network and descriptions of celebrities to improve the prediction ability and recommendation interpretability. In our model, we combine topic model with matrix factorization for both social network of celebrities and user following action matrix. It works by regularizing celebrity factors through celebrity’s social network and descriptive words associated with each celebrity. We also proposed to incorporate different confidences for d-ifferent dyadic contexts to handle the situation that only positive observations exist. We conducted experiments on two real-world datasets from Twitter and Tencent Weibo, which are the largest and second largest microblog websites in USA and China, respectively. The experiment results show that our model achieves a higher performance and provide more effective results than the state-of-art methods especially when recommending new celebrities. We also show that our model captures user intertests more precisely and gives better recommendation interpretability. 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".