MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080884086 · doi:10.1145/3394486.3403254

A Framework for Recommending Accurate and Diverse Items Using Bayesian Graph Convolutional Neural Networks

2020· article· en· W3080884086 on OpenAlexaff
Jianing Sun, Wei Guo, Dengcheng Zhang, Yingxue Zhang, Florence Regol, Yaochen Hu, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, Han Yuan, Xiuqiang He, Mark Coates

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemMachine learningInferenceConvolutional neural networkGraphArtificial intelligenceCollaborative filteringData miningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized recommender systems are playing an increasingly important role for online consumption platforms. Because of the multitude of relationships existing in recommender systems, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) based approaches have been proposed to better characterize the various relationships between a user and items while modeling a user's preferences. Previous graph-based recommendation approaches process the observed user-item interaction graph as a ground-truth depiction of the relationships between users and items. However, especially in the implicit recommendation setting, all the unobserved user-item interactions are usually assumed to be negative samples. There are missing links that represent a user's future actions. In addition, there may be spurious or misleading positive interactions. To alleviate the above issue, in this work, we take a first step to introduce a principled way to model the uncertainty in the user-item interaction graph using the Bayesian Graph Convolutional Neural Network framework. We discuss how inference can be performed under our framework and provide a concrete formulation using the Bayesian Probabilistic Ranking training loss. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework on four benchmark recommendation datasets. The proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art graph-based recommendation models. Furthermore, we conducted an offline evaluation on one industrial large-scale dataset. It shows that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, with the potential gain being more significant for cold-start users. This illustrates the potential practical benefit in real-world recommender systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations89
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207