Noise Contrastive Estimation for Autoencoding-based One-Class Collaborative Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-class collaborative filtering (OC-CF) is a common class of recommendation problem where only the positive class is explicitly observed (e.g., purchases, clicks). Autoencoder based recommenders such as AutoRec and variants demonstrate strong performance on many OC-CF benchmarks, but also empirically suffer from a strong popularity bias. While a careful choice of negative samples in the OC-CF setting can mitigate popularity bias, Negative Sampling (NS) is often better for training embeddings than for the end task itself. To address this, we propose a two-headed AutoRec to first train an embedding layer via one head using Negative Sampling then to train for the final task via the second head. While this NS-AutoRec improves results for AutoRec and outperforms many state-of-the-art baselines on OC-CF problems, we notice that Negative Sampling can still take a large amount of time to train. Since Negative Sampling is known to be a special case of Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE), we adapt a recently proposed closed-form NCE solution for collaborative filtering to AutoRec yielding NCE-AutoRec. Overall, we show that our novel two-headed AutoRec models (NCE-AutoRec and NS-AutoRec) successfully mitigate the popularity bias issue and maintain competitive performance in comparison to state-of-the-art recommenders on multiple real-world datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".