Multi-graph Convolution Collaborative Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized recommendation is ubiquitous, playing an important role in many online services. Substantial research has been dedicated to learning vector representations of users and items with the goal of predicting a user's preference for an item based on the similarity of the representations. Techniques range from classic matrix factorization to more recent deep learning based methods. However, we argue that existing methods do not make full use of the information that is available from user-item interaction data and the similarities between user pairs and item pairs. In this work, we develop a graph convolution-based recommendation framework, named Multi-Graph Convolution Collaborative Filtering (Multi-GCCF), which explicitly incorporates multiple graphs in the embedding learning process. Multi-GCCF not only expressively models the high-order information via a bipartite user-item interaction graph, but integrates the proximal information by building and processing user-user and item-item graphs. Furthermore, we consider the intrinsic difference between user nodes and item nodes when performing graph convolution on the bipartite graph. We conduct extensive experiments on four publicly accessible benchmarks, showing significant improvements relative to several state-of-the-art collaborative filtering and graph neural network-based recommendation models. Further experiments quantitatively verify the effectiveness of each component of our proposed model and demonstrate that the learned embeddings capture the important relationship structure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".