Itinerary-aware Personalized Deep Matching at Fliggy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matching items for a user from a travel item pool of large cardinality have been the most important technology for increasing the business at Fliggy, one of the most popular online travel platforms (OTPs) in China. There are three major challenges facing OTPs: sparsity, diversity, and implicitness. In this paper, we present a novel Fliggy ITinerary-aware deep matching NETwork (FitNET) to address these three challenges. FitNET is designed based on the popular deep matching network, which has been successfully employed in many industrial recommendation systems, due to its effectiveness. The concept itinerary is firstly proposed under the context of recommendation systems for OTPs, which is defined as the list of unconsumed orders of a user. All orders in a user itinerary are learned as a whole, based on which the implicit travel intention of each user can be more accurately inferred. To alleviate the sparsity problem, users’ profiles are incorporated into FitNET. Meanwhile, a series of itinerary-aware attention mechanisms that capture the vital interactions between user’s itinerary and other input categories are carefully designed. These mechanisms are very helpful in inferring a user’s travel intention or preference, and handling the diversity in a user’s need. Further, two training objectives, i.e., prediction accuracy of user’s travel intention and prediction accuracy of user’s click behavior, are utilized by FitNET, so that these two objectives can be optimized simultaneously. An offline experiment on Fliggy production dataset with over 0.27 million users and 1.55 million travel items, and an online A/B test both show that FitNET effectively learns users’ travel intentions, preferences, and diverse needs, based on their itineraries and gains superior performance compared with state-of-the-art methods. FitNET now has been successfully deployed at Fliggy, serving major online traffic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".