MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416017175 · doi:10.1145/3746252.3760793

Harnessing Light for Cold-Start Recommendations: Leveraging Epistemic Uncertainty to Enhance Performance in User-Item Interactions

2025· article· W4416017175 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Xiang, Li Fan, Chenke Yin, Menglin Kong, Chengtao Ji

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUncertainty quantificationRobustness (evolution)LimitingFocus (optics)Measure (data warehouse)Uncertainty reduction theoryEstimatorUncertainty analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most recent paradigms of generative model-based recommendation still face challenges related to the cold-start problem. Existing models addressing cold item recommendations mainly focus on acquiring more knowledge to enrich embeddings or model inputs. However, many models do not assess the efficiency with which they utilize the available training knowledge, leading to the extraction of significant knowledge that is not fully used, thus limiting improvements in cold-start performance. To address this, we introduce the concept of epistemic uncertainty (which refers to uncertainty caused by a lack of knowledge of the best model) to indirectly define how efficiently a model uses the training knowledge. Since epistemic uncertainty represents the reducible part of the total uncertainty, we can optimize the recommendation model further based on epistemic uncertainty to improve its performance. To this end, we propose a Cold-Start Recommendation based on Epistemic Uncertainty (CREU) framework. Additionally, CREU is inspired by Pairwise-Distance Estimators (PaiDEs) to efficiently and accurately measure epistemic uncertainty by evaluating the mutual information between model outputs and weights in high-dimensional spaces. The proposed method is evaluated through extensive offline experiments on public datasets, which further demonstrate the advantages and robustness of CREU. The source code is available at https://github.com/EsiksonX/CREU.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207