MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944790191 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.02009

Visually-aware Recommendation with Aesthetic Features

2019· preprint· en· W2944790191 on OpenAlexaff
Wenhui Yu, Xiangnan He, Jian Pei, Xu Chen, Li Xiong, Jinfei Liu, Zheng Qin

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemPairwise comparisonClothingKey (lock)PerceptionHuman–computer interactionProduct (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceSpace (punctuation)Information retrievalProcess (computing)Dynamics (music)Machine learningMathematicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207