MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413822491 · doi:10.1109/tsc.2025.3604375

AttResRec: Learning User Credibility for Attack Resistant Matrix Factorization Recommendation

2025· article· en· W4413822491 on OpenAlexaff
Jiangpeng Zhao, Song Wang, Quan Bai, Kuien Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Services Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMatrix decompositionCredibilityRecommender systemTheoretical computer scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pervasive threat of shilling attacks, where malicious users inject fraudulent ratings to manipulate recommendations, critically undermines the reliability of Matrix Factorization (MF)-based recommender systems. This paper proposes AttResRec, a novel MF-based approach designed to improve system integrity by learning and integrating user credibility directly into the recommendation pipeline. AttResRec's defense is built upon three synergistic innovations. First, it employs a user credibility estimation mechanism that quantifies user credibility by assessing the consistency between an individual's interaction history and prevalent item co-occurrence patterns identified from collective user behavior. This directly enables differentiation between genuine and potentially malicious users. Second, the learned credibility dynamically informs a Credibility-aware Huber Loss (CHL) function. The CHL adaptively modifies its error sensitivity, rigorously penalizing deviations for high-credibility users while robustly limiting the influence of large errors associate with low-credibility users. Third, the model optimization is performed via Credibility-Weighted Stochastic Gradient Descent (CW-SGD), ensuring that users with lower credibility scores exert a diminished influence on the learned model parameters. Extensive experiments on the MovieLens-25M and Amazon Musical Instruments datasets, under diverse shilling attack scenarios, demonstrate AttResRec's benefits. That is, it not only achieves superior recommendation accuracy but also exhibits enhanced attack resistance, evidenced by lower prediction shift and hit ratios for poisoned items in poisoned environments, compared to state-of-the-art robust baselines.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 venueIEEE Transactions on Services ComputingSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207