Low-Rank Linear Cold-Start Recommendation from Social Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cold-start problem involves recommendation of content to new users of a system, for whom there is no historical preference information available. This proves a challenge for collaborative filtering algorithms that inherently rely on such information. Recent work has shown that social metadata, such as users' friend groups and page likes, can strongly mitigate the problem. However, such approaches either lack an interpretation as optimising some principled objective, involve iterative non-convex optimisation with limited scalability, or require tuning several hyperparameters. In this paper, we first show how three popular cold-start models are special cases of a linear content-based model, with implicit constraints on the weights. Leveraging this insight, we propose Loco, a new model for cold-start recommendation based on three ingredients: (a) linear regression to learn an optimal weighting of social signals for preferences, (b) a low-rank parametrisation of the weights to overcome the high dimensionality common in social data, and (c) scalable learning of such low-rank weights using randomised SVD. Experiments on four real-world datasets show that Loco yields significant improvements over state-of-the-art cold-start recommenders that exploit high-dimensional social network metadata.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".