Symmetric Collaborative Filtering Using the Noisy Sensor Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative filtering is the process of making recommendations regarding the potential preference of a user, for example shopping on the Internet, based on the preference ratings of the user and a number of other users for various items. This paper considers collaborative filtering based on explicitmulti-valued ratings. To evaluate the algorithms, weconsider only {em pure} collaborative filtering, using ratings exclusively, and no other information about the people or items.Our approach is to predict a user's preferences regarding a particularitem by using other people who rated that item and other items ratedby the user as noisy sensors. The noisy sensor model uses Bayes' theorem to compute the probability distribution for the user'srating of a new item. We give two variant models: in one, we learn a{em classical normal linear regression} model of how users rate items; in another,we assume different users rate items the same, but the accuracy of thesensors needs to be learned. We compare these variant models withstate-of-the-art techniques and show how they are significantly better,whether a user has rated only two items or many. We reportempirical results using the EachMovie database footnote{http://research.compaq.com/SRC/eachmovie/} of movie ratings. Wealso show that by considering items similarity along with theusers similarity, the accuracy of the prediction increases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".