MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DSRS: DELIGHT sequential recommender system

2025· article· en· W4406063205 on OpenAlexaff
Syed Tauhid Ullah Shah, Fazlullah Khan, Shirin Yamani, Ryan Alturki, Foziah Gazzawe, Imran Razzak

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNingbo Municipal Bureau of Science and Technology
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemArtificial intelligenceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequential recommendation is becoming more critical in a variety of e-commerce platforms. The aim of sequential recommender systems is to model the dynamic preferences of users based on their previous actions and predict what they will do next. The collected user activity logs on real-world platforms could be quite long. This wealth of information provides options to follow users’ actual interests. Prior efforts primarily aimed at providing recommendations following recent behaviors. Meanwhile, the entire sequential data may not be used efficiently since early actions may influence users’ decisions at present. Furthermore, scanning the whole behavior sequence while doing inference for every user is unbearable due to the need for prompt reaction time in real-world applications. To this end, we propose the DELIGHT Sequential Recommender System (DSRS), which takes the above properties into account to recommend the next item the user might be interested in. DSRS divides the entire user behavior sequence into long- and short-term segments and models them through independent networks before integrating their learned representations. In particular, the first network learns user long-term, whereas the second one learns short-term preferences and then combines them for an efficient joint recommendation. Experimental findings across four datasets show that our model outperforms other state-of-the-art sequential models in apprehending long-term dependence.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Applications of Artificial IntelligenceSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207