MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955894817 · doi:10.1145/3331184.3331292

One-Class Collaborative Filtering with the Queryable Variational Autoencoder

2019· article· en· W2955894817 on OpenAlexaff
Ga Wu, Mohamed Reda Bouadjenek, Scott Sanner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderComputer scienceAmbiguityCollaborative filteringRepresentation (politics)PreferenceBenchmark (surveying)Class (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningFeature learningDeep learningTheoretical computer scienceRecommender systemMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variational Autoencoder (VAE) based methods for Collaborative Filtering (CF) demonstrate remarkable performance for one-class (implicit negative) recommendation tasks by extending autoencoders with relaxed but tractable latent distributions. Explicitly modeling a latent distribution over user preferences allows VAEs to learn user and item representations that not only reproduce observed interactions, but also generalize them by leveraging learning from similar users and items. Unfortunately, VAE-CF can exhibit suboptimal learning properties; e.g., VAE-CFs will increase their prediction confidence as they receive more preferences per user, even when those preferences may vary widely and create ambiguity in the user representation. To address this issue, we propose a novel Queryable Variational Autoencoder (Q-VAE) variant of the VAE that explicitly models arbitrary conditional relationships between observations. The proposed model appropriately increases uncertainty (rather than reduces it) in cases where a large number of user preferences may lead to an ambiguous user representation. Our experiments on two benchmark datasets show that the Q-VAE generally performs comparably or outperforms VAE-based recommenders as well as other state-of-the-art approaches and is generally competitive across the user preference density spectrum, where other methods peak for certain preference density levels.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207