Cross-Domain Recommendation: Leveraging Semantic Alignment and User Clustering to Address Data Sparsity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-domain recommender systems can address data sparsity by leveraging information from a data-rich domain to improve recommendations in a data-sparse domain. In this study, we consider two distinct domains that share common members but have different items. We propose a new approach to enhance recommendation accuracy in the sparse domain by utilizing semantic alignments and clustering techniques. We begin the process by aligning the domains using shared semantic information between them. After establishing this semantic alignment, we apply clustering techniques to group similar users within each domain. These user clusters are then aligned across domains, allowing us to transfer knowledge from the richer domain’s clusters to the sparser domain. By effectively bridging the gap between the domains, our method can enhance the accuracy of the recommendation. We have evaluated the performance of our proposed approach on the Amazon Movies and Amazon Books datasets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it