MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321788223 · doi:10.3390/s23052495

Hybrid Recommendation Network Model with a Synthesis of Social Matrix Factorization and Link Probability Functions

2023· article· en· W4321788223 on OpenAlexaff
Balraj Kumar, Neeraj Sharma, Bhisham Sharma, Norbert Herencsár, Gautam Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecommender systemMatrix decompositionComputer scienceCollaborative filteringBayesian networkSocial network (sociolinguistics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Information retrievalCold start (automotive)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceSocial mediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommender systems are becoming an integral part of routine life, as they are extensively used in daily decision-making processes such as online shopping for products or services, job references, matchmaking for marriage purposes, and many others. However, these recommender systems are lacking in producing quality recommendations owing to sparsity issues. Keeping this in mind, the present study introduces a hybrid recommendation model for recommending music artists to users which is hierarchical Bayesian in nature, known as Relational Collaborative Topic Regression with Social Matrix Factorization (RCTR-SMF). This model makes use of a lot of auxiliary domain knowledge and provides seamless integration of Social Matrix Factorization and Link Probability Functions into Collaborative Topic Regression-based recommender systems to attain better prediction accuracy. Here, the main emphasis is on examining the effectiveness of unified information related to social networking and an item-relational network structure in addition to item content and user-item interactions to make predictions for user ratings. RCTR-SMF addresses the sparsity problem by utilizing additional domain knowledge, and it can address the cold-start problem in the case that there is hardly any rating information available. Furthermore, this article exhibits the proposed model performance on a large real-world social media dataset. The proposed model provides a recall of 57% and demonstrates its superiority over other state-of-the-art recommendation algorithms.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207