Practical linear models for large-scale one-class collaborative filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative filtering has emerged as the de facto approach to personalized recommendation problems. However, a scenario that has proven difficult in practice is the one-class collaborative filtering case (OC-CF), where one has examples of items that a user prefers, but no examples of items they do not prefer. In such cases, it is desirable to have recommendation algorithms that are personalized, learning-based, and highly scalable. Existing linear recommenders for OC-CF achieve good performance in benchmarking tasks, but they involve solving a large number of a regression subproblems, limiting their applicability to large-scale problems. We show that it is possible to scale up linear recommenders to big data by learning an OCCF model in a randomized low-dimensional embedding of the user-item interaction matrix. Our algorithm, Linear-FLow, achieves state-of-the-art performance in a comprehensive set of experiments on standard benchmarks as well as real data.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".