What to Do Next: Modeling User Behaviors by Time-LSTM
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
Recently, Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) solutions for recommender systems (RS) are becoming increasingly popular. The insight is that, there exist some intrinsic patterns in the sequence of users' actions, and RNN has been proved to perform excellently when modeling sequential data. In traditional tasks such as language modeling, RNN solutions usually only consider the sequential order of objects without the notion of interval. However, in RS, time intervals between users' actions are of significant importance in capturing the relations of users' actions and the traditional RNN architectures are not good at modeling them. In this paper, we propose a new LSTM variant, i.e. Time-LSTM, to model users' sequential actions. Time-LSTM equips LSTM with time gates to model time intervals. These time gates are specifically designed, so that compared to the traditional RNN solutions, Time-LSTM better captures both of users' short-term and long-term interests, so as to improve the recommendation performance. Experimental results on two real-world datasets show the superiority of the recommendation method using Time-LSTM over the traditional methods.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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