A Contrastive Sharing Model for Multi-Task Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-Task Learning (MTL) has attracted increasing attention in recommender systems. A crucial challenge in MTL is to learn suitable shared parameters among tasks and to avoid negative transfer of information. The most recent sparse sharing models use independent parameter masks, which only activate useful parameters for a task, to choose the useful subnet for each task. However, as all the subnets are optimized in parallel for each task independently, it is faced with the problem of conflict between parameter gradient updates (i.e, parameter conflict problem). To address this challenge, we propose a novel Contrastive Sharing Recommendation model in MTL learning (CSRec). Each task in CSRec learns from the subnet by the independent parameter mask as in sparse sharing models, but a contrastive mask is carefully designed to evaluate the contribution of the parameter to a specific task. The conflict parameter will be optimized relying more on the task which is more impacted by the parameter. Besides, we adopt an alternating training strategy in CSRec, making it possible to self-adaptively update the conflict parameters by fair competitions. We conduct extensive experiments on three real-world large scale datasets, i.e., Tencent Kandian, Ali-CCP and Census-income, showing better effectiveness of our model over state-of-the-art methods for both offline and online MTL recommendation scenarios.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".