MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176655069 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i5.16539

PREMERE: Meta-Reweighting via Self-Ensembling for Point-of-Interest Recommendation

2021· article· en· W3176655069 on OpenAlexaff
Minseok Kim, Hwanjun Song, Doyoung Kim, Kijung Shin, Jae-Gil Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionMinistry of Science and ICT, South Korea
KeywordsWeightingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Recommender systemScheme (mathematics)Meta learning (computer science)Artificial intelligencePoint of interestData miningPoint (geometry)MetamodelingMachine learningMetadataInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point-of-interest (POI) recommendation has become an important research topic in these days. The user check-in history used as the input to POI recommendation is very imbalanced and noisy because of sparse and missing check-ins. Although sample reweighting is commonly adopted for addressing this challenge with the input data, its fixed weighting scheme is often inappropriate to deal with different characteristics of users or POIs. Thus, in this paper, we propose PREMERE, an adaptive weighting scheme based on meta-learning. Because meta-data is typically required by meta-learning but is inherently hard to obtain in POI recommendation, we self-generate the meta-data via self-ensembling. Furthermore, the meta-model architecture is extended to deal with the scarcity of check-ins. Thorough experiments show that replacing a weighting scheme with PREMERE boosts the performance of the state-of-the-art recommender algorithms by 2.36–26.9% on three benchmark datasets.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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