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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
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