Structural Analysis of User Choices for Mobile App Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in smartphone technology have promoted the rapid development of mobile apps. However, the availability of a huge number of mobile apps in application stores has imposed the challenge of finding the right apps to meet the user needs. Indeed, there is a critical demand for personalized app recommendations. Along this line, there are opportunities and challenges posed by two unique characteristics of mobile apps. First, app markets have organized apps in a hierarchical taxonomy. Second, apps with similar functionalities are competing with each other. Although there are a variety of approaches for mobile app recommendations, these approaches do not have a focus on dealing with these opportunities and challenges. To this end, in this article, we provide a systematic study for addressing these challenges. Specifically, we develop a structural user choice model (SUCM) to learn fine-grained user preferences by exploiting the hierarchical taxonomy of apps as well as the competitive relationships among apps. Moreover, we design an efficient learning algorithm to estimate the parameters for the SUCM model. Finally, we perform extensive experiments on a large app adoption dataset collected from Google Play. The results show that SUCM consistently outperforms state-of-the-art Top-N recommendation methods by a significant margin.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".