Improving Top-N Recommendation for Cold-Start Users via Cross-Domain Information
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
Making accurate recommendations for cold-start users is a challenging yet important problem in recommendation systems. Including more information from other domains is a natural solution to improve the recommendations. However, most previous work in cross-domain recommendations has focused on improving prediction accuracy with several severe limitations. In this article, we extend our previous work on clustering-based matrix factorization in single domains into cross domains. In addition, we utilize recent results on unobserved ratings. Our new method can more effectively utilize data from auxiliary domains to achieve better recommendations, especially for cold-start users. For example, our method improves the recall to 21% on average for cold-start users, whereas previous methods result in only 15% recall in the cross-domain Amazon dataset. We also observe almost the same improvements in the Epinions dataset. Considering that it is often difficult to make even a small improvement in recommendations, for cold- start users in particular, our result is quite significant.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| 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