MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997477628 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5854

Sequential Recommendation with Relation-Aware Kernelized Self-Attention

2020· article· en· W2997477628 on OpenAlexaff
Mingi Ji, Weonyoung Joo, Kyungwoo Song, Yoon-Yeong Kim, Il‐Chul Moon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicMachine learningRecommender systemSkewLatent Dirichlet allocationRelation (database)Artificial intelligenceTransformerData miningTopic modelEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies identified that sequential Recommendation is improved by the attention mechanism. By following this development, we propose Relation-Aware Kernelized Self-Attention (RKSA) adopting a self-attention mechanism of the Transformer with augmentation of a probabilistic model. The original self-attention of Transformer is a deterministic measure without relation-awareness. Therefore, we introduce a latent space to the self-attention, and the latent space models the recommendation context from relation as a multivariate skew-normal distribution with a kernelized covariance matrix from co-occurrences, item characteristics, and user information. This work merges the self-attention of the Transformer and the sequential recommendation by adding a probabilistic model of the recommendation task specifics. We experimented RKSA over the benchmark datasets, and RKSA shows significant improvements compared to the recent baseline models. Also, RKSA were able to produce a latent space model that answers the reasons for recommendation.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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