Variational Autoencoders for Top-K Recommendation with Implicit Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) have shown to be effective for recommender systems with implicit feedback (e.g., browsing history, purchasing patterns, etc.). However, a little attention is given to ensembles of VAEs, that can learn user and item representations jointly. We introduce Joint Variational Autoencoder (JoVA), an ensemble of two VAEs, which jointly learns both user and item representations to predict user preferences. This design allows JoVA to capture user-user and item-item correlations simultaneously. We also introduce JoVA-Hinge, a JoVA's extension with a hinge-based pairwise loss function, to further specialize it in recommendation with implicit feedback. Our extensive experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that JoVA-Hinge outperforms a broad set of state-of-the-art methods under a variety of commonly-used metrics. Our empirical results also illustrate the effectiveness of JoVA-Hinge for handling users with limited training data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".