MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Regularized Model to Trade-off between Accuracy and Diversity in a News Recommender System

2020· article· en· W3138194008 on OpenAlexaff
Shaina Raza, Chen Ding

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersScience and Engineering Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemRegularization (linguistics)GeneralityMachine learningDiversity (politics)Ranking (information retrieval)Artificial intelligenceField (mathematics)Data miningInformation retrievalFactor analysisData scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

News recommender systems are usually designed to provide accurate and personalized recommendations to the readers. The diversity of the recommended results has received much less attention in this field. When it is considered, the current state-of-the-art models often apply the re-ranking mechanisms to promote the diversified results to the individual users. In this work, we propose a latent factor model to achieve the requisite level of accuracy while maintaining a reasonable level of diversity in a news recommender system. The existing latent factor methods mostly rely on Tikhonov regularization to improve the generality of the learnt models. These methods tend to focus mainly on accuracy measures, i.e., generating recommendations highly aligned with a user's past preference, which may cause a decrease in the diversity of information to which news readers are exposed. In our work, we make effective use of elastic-net regression to regularize the model for both the accuracy and the diversity in a single optimization framework. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model over the state-of-the-art methods by conducting extensive experiments on a real-world news dataset.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207