A replication study on implicit feedback recommender systems with application to the data visualization recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we compare the Bayesian personalized ranking (BPR) algorithms with two recent state‐of‐the‐art algorithms, namely, noisy‐label robust Bayesian point‐wise optimization (NBPO) and Light Graph Convolution Network (LightGCN) algorithms, to validate and generalize their performance by using six publicly available datasets and one proprietary dataset containing web‐based data visualization usage records. We follow the guidelines explained in the original studies to pre‐process the input data and evaluate these algorithms using various evaluation metrics. We also perform hyperparameter tuning for the recommendation algorithms to determine the optimal configuration resulting in the best recommendation quality. We observe that the best hyperparameter configuration varies based on the algorithms and the datasets. The results of our analysis show some similarities with the results of the original studies while differing in certain respects. We observe that adaptive oversampling BPR (AOBPR) and LightGCN algorithms generate higher quality recommendations than the other algorithms. However, algorithm convergence rates vary significantly for each dataset. We note that the AOBPR approach is particularly useful for data visualization recommendation task, and can contribute to the improved recommendations in practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".