Learning community-based preferences via dirichlet process mixtures of Gaussian processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian approaches to preference learning using Gaussian Processes (GPs) are attractive due to their ability to explicitly model uncertainty in users ’ latent utility functions; unfortunately existing techniques have cubic time complexity in the number of users, which renders this approach intractable for collaborative preference learning over a large user base. Exploiting the observation that user populations often decompose into communities of shared preferences, we model user preferences as an infinite Dirichlet Process (DP) mixture of communities and learn (a) the expected number of preference communities represented in the data, (b) a GPbased preference model over items tailored to each community, and (c) the mixture weights representing each user’s fraction of community membership. This results in a learning and inference process that scales linearly in the number of users rather than cubicly and additionally provides the ability to analyze individual community preferences and their associated members. We evaluate our approach on a variety of preference data sources including Amazon Mechanical Turk showing that our method is more scalable and as accurate as previous GP-based preference learning work. 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it