MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310496931 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2319674/v1

Time-series association based dynamic graph evolution for recommendation

2022· preprint· en· W4310496931 on OpenAlexaff
Chunjing Xiao, Shenkai Lv, Wei Fan, W.H. Ip

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphAssociation (psychology)Recommender systemSimilarity (geometry)Series (stratigraphy)Data miningComponent (thermodynamics)Theoretical computer scienceInformation retrievalMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modeling the interactions between users and items to accurately predict ratings is very crucial for improving the performance of recommendation. Although existing graph-based methods have achieved great progress in predicting ratings for recommendation, they usually need additional side information which is difficultly obtained, and ignore the temporal associations between items (users) when constructing graphs. In this paper, we propose a time series association based dynamic graph evolution model for recommendation, which can capture not only the information propagation on multiple graphs but also the temporal association between items (users) by constructing a time series item association graph and a user similarity graph. Specifically, the proposed model consists of two main components: recurrent graph construction component and message propagation component. The former recurrently constructs the time series item association graph and the user similarity graph only from the interactions between items (users) to capture the temporal associations between items (users), which further helps the process of constructing two auxiliary graphs. The latter refines user and item representations by aggregating the influence information propagated from multiple high-order neighbors. Finally, the refined representations of users and items are used to predict ratings on all items a user has not interacted with. The experimental results illustrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on five real-world datasets.

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)0.006
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207