Visually-aware Recommendation with Aesthetic Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual information plays a critical role in human decision-making process. While recent developments on visually-aware recommender systems have taken the product image into account, none of them has considered the aesthetic aspect. We argue that the aesthetic factor is very important in modeling and predicting users' preferences, especially for some fashion-related domains like clothing and jewelry. This work addresses the need of modeling aesthetic information in visually-aware recommender systems. Technically speaking, we make three key contributions in leveraging deep aesthetic features: (1) To describe the aesthetics of products, we introduce the aesthetic features extracted from product images by a deep aesthetic network. We incorporate these features into recommender system to model users' preferences in the aesthetic aspect. (2) Since in clothing recommendation, time is very important for users to make decision, we design a new tensor decomposition model for implicit feedback data. The aesthetic features are then injected to the basic tensor model to capture the temporal dynamics of aesthetic preferences (e.g., seasonal patterns). (3) We also use the aesthetic features to optimize the learning strategy on implicit feedback data. We enrich the pairwise training samples by considering the similarity among items in the visual space and graph space; the key idea is that a user may likely have similar perception on similar items. We perform extensive experiments on several real-world datasets and demonstrate the usefulness of aesthetic features and the effectiveness of our proposed 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".