Adapting Triplet Importance of Implicit Feedback for Personalized Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implicit feedback is frequently used for developing personalized recommendation services due to its ubiquity and accessibility in real-world systems. In order to effectively utilize such information, most research adopts the pairwise ranking method on constructed training triplets (user, positive item, negative item) and aims to distinguish between positive items and negative items for each user. However, most of these methods treat all the training triplets equally, which ignores the subtle difference between different positive or negative items. On the other hand, even though some other works make use of the auxiliary information (e.g., dwell time) of user behaviors to capture this subtle difference, such auxiliary information is hard to obtain. To mitigate the aforementioned problems, we propose a novel training framework named Triplet Importance Learning (TIL), which adaptively learns the importance score of training triplets. We devise two strategies for the importance score generation and formulate the whole procedure as a bilevel optimization, which does not require any rule-based design. We integrate the proposed training procedure with several Matrix Factorization (MF)- and Graph Neural Network (GNN)-based recommendation models, demonstrating the compatibility of our framework. Via a comparison using three real-world datasets with many state-of-the-art methods, we show that our proposed method outperforms the best existing models by 3-21% in terms of [email protected] for the top-k recommendation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".