Rec-CFSVD++: Implementing Recommendation System Using Collaborative Filtering and Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)++
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recommender systems, Collaborative Filtering (CF) plays an essential role in promoting recommendation services. The conventional CF approach has limitations, namely data sparsity and cold-start. The matrix decomposition approach is demonstrated to be one of the effective approaches used in developing recommendation systems. This paper presents a new approach that uses CF and Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)[Formula: see text] for implementing a recommendation system. Therefore, this work is an attempt to extend the existing recommendation systems by (i) finding similarity between user and item from rating matrices using cosine similarity; (ii) predicting missing ratings using a matrix decomposition approach, and (iii) recommending top-N user-preferred items. The recommender system’s performance is evaluated considering Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Performance evaluation is accomplished by comparing the systems developed using CF in combination with six different algorithms, namely SVD, SVD[Formula: see text], Co-Clustering, KNNBasic, KNNBaseline, and KNNWithMeans. We have experimented using MovieLens 100[Formula: see text]K, MovieLens 1[Formula: see text]M, and BookCrossing datasets. The results prove that the proposed approach gives a lesser error rate when cross-validation ([Formula: see text]) is performed. The experimental results show that the lowest error rate is achieved with MovieLens 100[Formula: see text]K dataset ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). The proposed approach also alleviates the sparsity and cold-start problems and recommends the relevant items.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".