Adaptive modeling combined with reinforcement learning to handle text multi-categorization tasks in news pushing


Abstract

With the swift advancement of information technology, news push—a pivotal means of information dissemination—has progressively evolved towards greater intelligence and personalization. User interest classification and precise push mechanisms, central to the development of news recommender systems, not only enhance the efficiency with which users access information but also effectively cater to their individualized needs. However, the performance of traditional methods in classification and recommendation remains constrained due to the high-dimensional nature of news data, limited annotations, and the dynamic fluctuations in user interests. In light of these challenges, this paper proposes BTQLM, a novel framework for news classification and recommendation that seamlessly integrates pre-trained language models with reinforcement learning. Initially, this study extracts contextual semantic features of the text through BERT, bolsters local feature extraction by incorporating a convolutional pooling layer, and captures global dependencies via the Transformer network. Building upon this, a reinforcement learning mechanism is introduced to dynamically refine the classification strategy by defining loss and reward functions, followed by joint optimization, thereby effectively enhancing classification performance. Furthermore, the paper combines the classification results with the NCF-based collaborative filtering method to enable personalized news recommendations through user interest modeling and similarity computation. Experimental results demonstrate that BTQLM significantly outperforms traditional methods such as TextCNN, ABLCNN-Word, Tree-LSTM, and AdaSent in classification accuracy, achieving over 0.85 accuracy on both the MIND and MIND-small datasets. In the recommendation task, the push strategy based on BTQLM’s classification results attains a recommendation accuracy exceeding 0.6 across diverse scenarios. The research presented herein offers an efficient technical solution for the design of intelligent news push systems, providing both theoretical underpinnings and practical guidance for advancing the field of news recommendation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].