MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382394543 · doi:10.18280/ts.400321

An Examination of Implicit Trust and Influence in Social Recommendation Through Graph Convolutional Networks

2023· article· en· W4382394543 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xili Cai, Xiyuan Wang, Yingying Zhang, Dewen Seng, Xuefeng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the realm of social recommendation, the utilization of Graph Convolution Networks (GCNs) has proven effective for embedding propagation, allowing user-item implicit social relations to be modeled efficiently.However, the shortcomings of these existing models lie in their focus on local neighbors and their lack of simulation of recursive diffusion in a broader social network, thus limiting their performance potential.To address this gap, a novel GCN framework, herein referred to as the Trust and Influence Graph Convolution Network (TIGCN), is proposed.This framework aims to improve the robustness of social recommendation systems by utilizing implicit social relations and user-item interactions.Through the construction of user-user trust and influence graphs derived from a bipartite social network, influential users are identified using the Structural Holes method.The TIGCN framework then employs these inter-user relationships, including trust and influence features, to collectively navigate the propagation of user interests and social relations.The effectiveness of the TIGCN is demonstrated through experiments conducted on real-world datasets such as Ciao, Epinions, and FilmTrust.Results show that the TIGCN offers significant performance improvements over other state-of-the-art baselines like FST, FSTID, and SocialLGN.The metrics indicating these improvements include increased Precision@5 (up to 2.08%), Recall@5 (up to 2.7%), NDCG@5 (up to 2.28%), Precision@10 (up to 2.65%), Recall@10 (up to 2.87%), and NDCG@10 (up to 2.82%).In conclusion, the introduction of the TIGCN has opened up promising avenues for the enhancement of social recommendation through the incorporation of implicit social relations and the innovative use of GCNs.Future studies should focus on improving the scalability and effectiveness of the TIGCN framework to maximize its contribution to social recommendation systems.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207