MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197544447 · doi:10.1145/3472163.3472183

A Framework for Enhancing Deep Learning Based Recommender Systems with Knowledge Graphs

2021· article· en· W3197544447 on OpenAlexafffund
Sudhir P. Mudur, Serguei A. Mokhov, Yuhao Mao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemPipeline (software)Deep learningCollaborative filteringInformation retrievalDomain knowledgeArtificial intelligenceInformation filtering systemGraphInformation extractionMachine learningData miningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommendation methods fall into three major categories, content based filtering, collaborative filtering and deep learning based. Information about products and the preferences of earlier users are used in an unsupervised manner to create models which help make personalized recommendations to a specific new user. The more information we provide to these methods, the more likely it is that they yield better recommendations. Deep learning based methods are relatively recent, and are generally more robust to noise and missing information. This is because deep learning models can be trained even when some of the information records have partial information. Knowledge graphs represent the current trend in recording information in the form of relations between entities, and can provide any available information about products and users. This information is used to train the recommendation model. In this work, we present a new generic recommender systems framework, that integrates knowledge graphs into the recommendation pipeline. We describe its design and implementation, and then show through experiments, how such a framework can be specialized, taking the domain of movies as an example, and the resulting improvements in recommendations made possible by using all the information obtained using knowledge graphs. Our framework, to be made publicly available, supports different knowledge graph representation formats, and facilitates format conversion, merging and information extraction needed for training recommendation models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207