MCL: Mixed-Centric Loss for Collaborative Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of recent work in latent Collaborative Filtering (CF) has focused on developing new model architectures to learn accurate user and item representations. Typically, a standard pairwise loss function (BPR, Triplet, etc.) is used in these models, and little exploration is done on how to optimally extract signals from the available preference information. In the implicit setting, negative examples are sampled, and these losses allocate weights that solely depend on the difference in user distance between observed (positive) and negative item pairs. This can ignore valuable global information from other users and items, and lead to sub-optimal results. Motivated by this problem, we propose a novel loss which first leverages mining to select the most informative pairs, followed by a weighing process to allocate more weight to harder examples. Our weighting process consists of four different components, and incorporates distance information from other users, enabling the model to better position the learned representations. We conduct extensive experiments and demonstrate that our loss can be applied to different types of CF models leading to significant gains with each type. In particular, by applying our loss to the graph convolutional architecture, we achieve new state-of-the-art results on four different datasets. Further analysis shows that through our loss the model is able to learn better user-item representation space compared to other losses. Full code for this work is available here: https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/MCL.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".