MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387849000 · doi:10.1145/3583780.3614853

Dual-Process Graph Neural Network for Diversified Recommendation

2023· article· en· W4387849000 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanyi Ren, Hang Ni, Yingxue Zhang, Xi Wang, Guojie Song, Dong Li, Jianye Hao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Machine learningDual (grammatical number)Diversity (politics)Artificial neural networkBoosting (machine learning)Relevance (law)GraphTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recommender system is one of the most fundamental information services. A significant effort has been devoted to improving prediction accuracy, inevitably leading to the potential degradation of recommendation diversity. Moreover, individuals have different needs for diversity. To address these problems, diversity-enhanced approaches are proposed to modify the recommender models. However, these methods fail to break free from the relevance-oriented paradigm and are mostly haunted by sharply-declined accuracy and high computational costs. To tackle these challenges, we propose the Dual-Process Graph Neural Network (DPGNN), an efficient diversity-enhanced recommender system, resonating with the dual-process model of human cognition and the arousal theory of human interest. The first stage reduces the risk of suboptimal output during the training procedure, which helps to find a solution outside the relevance-oriented paradigm. Moreover, the second stage utilizes user-specific rating adjustments, boosting the recommendation diversity and accommodating users' distinctive needs with minimum computational costs. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets verify the effectiveness of our method in improving diversity, while maintaining accuracy with low computational costs.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207