MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903831494 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33014983

Hierarchical Context Enabled Recurrent Neural Network for Recommendation

2019· article· en· W2903831494 on OpenAlexaff
Kyungwoo Song, Mingi Ji, Sungrae Park, Il‐Chul Moon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMovieLensComputer scienceRecurrent neural networkContext (archaeology)Dependency (UML)Artificial intelligenceTerm (time)Recommender systemTransition (genetics)Artificial neural networkMachine learningCollaborative filtering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A long user history inevitably reflects the transitions of personal interests over time. The analyses on the user history require the robust sequential model to anticipate the transitions and the decays of user interests. The user history is often modeled by various RNN structures, but the RNN structures in the recommendation system still suffer from the long-term dependency and the interest drifts. To resolve these challenges, we suggest HCRNN with three hierarchical contexts of the global, the local, and the temporary interests. This structure is designed to withhold the global long-term interest of users, to reflect the local sub-sequence interests, and to attend the temporary interests of each transition. Besides, we propose a hierarchical context-based gate structure to incorporate our interest drift assumption. As we suggest a new RNN structure, we support HCRNN with a complementary bi-channel attention structure to utilize hierarchical context. We experimented the suggested structure on the sequential recommendation tasks with CiteULike, MovieLens, and LastFM, and our model showed the best performances in the sequential recommendations.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207