MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807848202 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/498

Matrix completion with Preference Ranking for Top-N Recommendation

2018· article· en· W2807848202 on OpenAlexafffund
Zengmao Wang, Yuhong Guo, Bo Du

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)PreferenceRecommender systemMatrix completionComputer scienceRank (graph theory)Matrix (chemical analysis)Learning to rankCollaborative filteringSparse matrixInformation retrievalFunction (biology)MinificationData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsWorld Wide WebCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matrix completion has become a popular method for top-N recommendation due to the low rank nature of sparse rating matrices. However, many existing methods produce top-N recommendations by recovering a user-item matrix solely based on a low rank function or its relaxations, while ignoring other important intrinsic characteristics of the top-N recommendation tasks such as preference ranking over the items. In this paper, we propose a novel matrix completion method that integrates the low rank and preference ranking characteristics of recommendation matrix under a self-recovery model for top-N recommendation. The proposed method is formulated as a joint minimization problem and solved using an ADMM algorithm. We conduct experiments on E-commerce datasets. The experimental results show the proposed approach outperforms several state-of-the-art 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207