MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382396965 · doi:10.1145/3606369

Coarse-to-Fine Knowledge-Enhanced Multi-Interest Learning Framework for Multi-Behavior Recommendation

2023· article· en· W4382396965 on OpenAlexaff
Chang Meng, Ziqi Zhao, Wei Guo, Yingxue Zhang, Haolun Wu, Chen Gao, Dong Li, Xiu Li, Ruiming Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Information Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePurchasingPreferenceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-types of behaviors (e.g., clicking, carting, purchasing, etc.) widely exist in most real-world recommendation scenarios, which are beneficial to learn users’ multi-faceted preferences. As dependencies are explicitly exhibited by the multiple types of behaviors, effectively modeling complex behavior dependencies is crucial for multi-behavior prediction. The state-of-the-art multi-behavior models learn behavior dependencies indistinguishably with all historical interactions as input. However, different behaviors may reflect different aspects of user preference, which means that some irrelevant interactions may play as noises to the target behavior to be predicted. To address the aforementioned limitations, we introduce multi-interest learning to the multi-behavior recommendation. More specifically, we propose a novel Coarse-to-fine Knowledge-enhanced Multi-interest Learning (CKML) framework to learn shared and behavior-specific interests for different behaviors. CKML introduces two advanced modules, namely Coarse-grained Interest Extracting (CIE) and Fine-grained Behavioral Correlation (FBC) , which work jointly to capture fine-grained behavioral dependencies. CIE uses knowledge-aware information to extract initial representations of each interest. FBC incorporates a dynamic routing scheme to further assign each behavior among interests. Empirical results on three real-world datasets verify the effectiveness and efficiency of our model in exploiting multi-behavior data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations39
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Information SystemsSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207