Neural Interactive Collaborative Filtering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study collaborative filtering in an interactive setting, in which the recommender agents iterate between making recommendations and updating the user profile based on the interactive feedback. The most challenging problem in this scenario is how to suggest items when the user profile has not been well established, \ie recommend for cold-start users or warm-start users with taste drifting. Existing approaches either rely on overly pessimistic linear exploration strategy or adopt meta-learning based algorithms in a full exploitation way. In this work, to quickly catch up with the user's interests, we proposed to represent the exploration policy with a neural network and directly learn it from the feedback data. Specifically, the exploration policy is encoded in the weights of multi-channel stacked self-attention neural networks and trained with efficient Q-learning by maximizing users' overall satisfaction in the recommender systems. The key insight is that the satisfied recommendations triggered by the exploration recommendation can be viewed as the exploration bonus (delayed reward) for its contribution on improving the quality of the user profile. Therefore, the proposed exploration policy, to balance between learning the user profile and making accurate recommendations, can be directly optimized by maximizing users' long-term satisfaction with reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments and analysis conducted on three benchmark collaborative filtering datasets have demonstrated the advantage of our method over state-of-the-art 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it