Social Recommendation with Strong and Weak Ties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the explosive growth of online social networks, it is now well understood that social information is highly helpful to recommender systems. Social recommendation methods are capable of battling the critical cold-start issue, and thus can greatly improve prediction accuracy. The main intuition is that through trust and influence, users are more likely to develop affinity toward items consumed by their social ties. Despite considerable work in social recommendation, little attention has been paid to the important distinctions between strong and weak ties, two well-documented notions in social sciences. In this work, we study the effects of distinguishing strong and weak ties in social recommendation. We use neighbourhood overlap to approximate tie strength and extend the popular Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) model to incorporate the distinction of strong and weak ties. We present an EM-based algorithm that simultaneously classifies strong and weak ties in a social network w.r.t. optimal recommendation accuracy and learns latent feature vectors for all users and all items. We conduct extensive empirical evaluation on four real-world datasets and demonstrate that our proposed method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art pairwise ranking methods in a variety of accuracy metrics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".