MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232058686 · doi:10.1109/wi.2007.4427165

Hybrid Collaborative Filtering Algorithms Using a Mixture of Experts

2007· article· en· W4232058686 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyuan Su, Russell Greiner, Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, Xingquan Zhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollaborative filteringComputer scienceRecommender systemAlgorithmSparse matrixMachine learningMixture modelData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative filtering (CF) is one of the most successful approaches for recommendation. In this paper, we propose two hybrid CF algorithms, sequential mixture CF and joint mixture CF, each combining advice from multiple experts for effective recommendation. These proposed hybrid CF models work particularly well in the common situation when data are very sparse. By combining multiple experts to form a mixture CF, our systems are able to cope with sparse data to obtain satisfactory performance. Empirical studies show that our algorithms outperform their peers, such as memory-based, pure model-based, pure content-based CF algorithms, and the content- boosted CF (a representative hybrid CF algorithm), especially when the underlying data are very sparse.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207