Sequential Recommendation with User Memory Networks
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
User preferences are usually dynamic in real-world recommender systems, and a user»s historical behavior records may not be equally important when predicting his/her future interests. Existing recommendation algorithms -- including both shallow and deep approaches -- usually embed a user»s historical records into a single latent vector/representation, which may have lost the per item- or feature-level correlations between a user»s historical records and future interests. In this paper, we aim to express, store, and manipulate users» historical records in a more explicit, dynamic, and effective manner. To do so, we introduce the memory mechanism to recommender systems. Specifically, we design a memory-augmented neural network (MANN) integrated with the insights of collaborative filtering for recommendation. By leveraging the external memory matrix in MANN, we store and update users» historical records explicitly, which enhances the expressiveness of the model. We further adapt our framework to both item- and feature-level versions, and design the corresponding memory reading/writing operations according to the nature of personalized recommendation scenarios. Compared with state-of-the-art methods that consider users» sequential behavior for recommendation, e.g., sequential recommenders with recurrent neural networks (RNN) or Markov chains, our method achieves significantly and consistently better performance on four real-world datasets. Moreover, experimental analyses show that our method is able to extract the intuitive patterns of how users» future actions are affected by previous behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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