MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385567607 · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599838

Hierarchical Projection Enhanced Multi-behavior Recommendation

2023· article· en· W4385567607 on OpenAlexaff
Chang Meng, Hengyu Zhang, Wei Guo, Huifeng Guo, Haotian Liu, Yingxue Zhang, Hongkun Zheng, Ruiming Tang, Xiu Li, Rui Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeightingDownstream (manufacturing)Projection (relational algebra)Task (project management)Transfer of learningMachine learningCode (set theory)Data miningArtificial intelligenceSource codeUpstream (networking)Information transferAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various types of user behaviors are recorded in most real-world recommendation scenarios. To fully utilize the multi-behavior information, the exploration of multiplex interaction among them is essential. Many multi-task learning based multi-behavior methods are proposed recently to use multiple types of supervision signals and perform information transfer among them. Despite the great successes, these methods fail to design prediction tasks comprehensively, leading to insufficient utilization of multi-behavior correlative information. Besides, these methods are either based on the weighting of expert information extracted from the coupled input or modeling of information transfer between multiple behavior levels through task-specific extractors, which are usually accompanied by negative transfer phenomenon1. To address the above problems, we propose a multi-behavior recommendation framework, called Hierarchical Projection Enhanced Multi-behavior Recommendation (HPMR). The key module, Projection-based Transfer Network (PTN), uses the projection mechanism to "explicitly" model the correlations of upstream and downstream behaviors, refines the upstream behavior representations, and fully uses the refined representations to enhance the learning of downstream tasks. Offline experiments on public and industrial datasets and online A/B test further verify the effectiveness of HPMR in modeling the associations from upstream to downstream and alleviating the negative transfer. The source code and datasets are available at https://github.com/MC-CV/HPMR.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations42
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207