MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406091633 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2553

GAN inversion and shifting: recommending product modifications to sellers for better user preference

2025· article· en· W4406091633 on OpenAlexaff
Satyadwyoom Kumar, Abhijith Sharma, Apurva Narayan

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemPreferenceBridging (networking)Product (mathematics)Similarity (geometry)Customer needsHuman–computer interactionInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceMarketingBusinessImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In efforts to better accommodate users, numerous researchers have endeavored to model customer behavior, seeking to comprehend how they interact with diverse items within online platforms. This exploration has given rise to recommendation systems, which utilize customer similarity with other customers or customer-item interactions to suggest new items based on the existing item catalog. Since these systems primarily focus on enhancing customer experiences, they overlook providing insights to sellers that could help refine the aesthetics of their items and increase their customer coverage. In this study, we go beyond customer recommendations to propose a novel approach: suggesting aesthetic feedback to sellers in the form of refined item images informed by customer-item interactions learned by a recommender system from multiple consumers. These images could serve as guidance for sellers to adapt existing items to meet the dynamic preferences of multiple users simultaneously. To evaluate the effectiveness of our method, we design experiments showcasing how changing the number of consumers and the class of item image used affect the change in preference score. Through these experiments, we found that our methodology outperforms previous approaches by generating distinct, realistic images with user preference higher by 16.7%, thus bridging the gap between customer-centric recommendations and seller-oriented feedback.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJ Computer ScienceSame topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207