Personalized Recommendation Method Based on Rating Matrix and Review Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In recent years, the algorithm based on review text has been widely used in recommendation systems, which can help mitigate the effect of sparsity in rating data within recommender algorithms. Existing methods typically employ a uniform model for capturing user and item features, but they are limited to the shallow feature level, and the user's personalized preferences and deep features of the item have not been fully explored, which may affect the relationship between the two representations learned by the model. The deeper relationship between them will affect the prediction results. Consequently, we propose a personalized recommendation method based on the rating matrix and review text denoted PRM‐RR, which is used to deeply mine user preferences and item characteristics. In the process of processing the comment text, we employ ALBERT to obtain vector representations for the words present in the review text firstly. Subsequently, taking into account that significant words and reviews bear relevance not solely to the review text but also to the user's individualized preferences, the proposed personalized attention module synergizes the user's personalized preference information with the review text vector, thereby engendering an enriched review‐based user representation. The fusion of the user's review representation and rating representation is accomplished through the feature fusion module using cross‐modal attention, yielding the final user representation. Lastly, we employ a factorization machine to predict the user's rating for the item, thereby facilitating the recommendation process. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets show that our method outperforms the baseline algorithm in all cases, demonstrating that our method effectively improves the performance of recommendations. The code is available at https://github.com/ZehuaChenLab/PRM‐RR .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".