MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119545471 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i5.16553

Knowledge-Enhanced Top-K Recommendation in Poincaré Ball

2021· article· en· W3119545471 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Ma, Liheng Ma, Yingxue Zhang, Haolun Wu, Xue Liu, Mark Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityComputer scienceRecommender systemKnowledge graphLearning to rankGraphRegularization (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningInformation retrievalTheoretical computer scienceRanking (information retrieval)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized recommender systems are increasingly important as more content and services become available and users struggle to identify what might interest them. Thanks to the ability for providing rich information, knowledge graphs (KGs) are being incorporated to enhance the recommendation performance and interpretability. To effectively make use of the knowledge graph, we propose a recommendation model in the hyperbolic space, which facilitates the learning of the hierarchical structure of knowledge graphs. Furthermore, a hyperbolic attention network is employed to determine the relative importances of neighboring entities of a certain item. In addition, we propose an adaptive and fine-grained regularization mechanism to adaptively regularize items and their neighboring representations. Via a comparison using three real-world datasets with state-of-the-art methods, we show that the proposed model outperforms the best existing models by 2-16% in terms of NDCG@K on Top-K 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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