Modeling User Reviews through Bayesian Graph Attention Networks for Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommender systems relieve users from cognitive overloading by predicting preferred items for users. Due to the complexity of interactions between users and items, graph neural networks (GNN) use graph structures to effectively model user–item interactions. However, existing GNN approaches have the following limitations: (1) User reviews are not adequately modeled in graphs. Therefore, user preferences and item properties that are described in user reviews are lost for modeling users and items; and (2) GNNs assume deterministic relations between users and items, which lack the stochastic modeling to estimate the uncertainties in neighbor relations. To mitigate the limitations, we build tripartite graphs to model user reviews as nodes that connect with users and items. We estimate neighbor relations with stochastic variables and propose a Bayesian graph attention network (i.e., ContGraph) to accurately predict user ratings. ContGraph incorporates the prior knowledge of user preferences to regularize the posterior inference of attention weights. Our experimental results show that ContGraph significantly outperforms 13 state-of-the-art models and improves the best performing baseline (i.e., ANR) by 5.23% on 25 datasets in the five-core version. Moreover, we show that correctly modeling the semantics of user reviews in graphs can help express the semantics of users and items.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".