1
play

1 Collaborative Filtering Collaborative Filtering Maintain a - PDF document

Aug 17, 2023 •227 likes •346 views

Recommender Systems Systems for recommending items (e.g. books, movies, music, web pages, newsgroup messages) to users based on examples of their preferences. Recommender Systems Many on-line stores provide recommendations (e.g. Amazon,

  1. Recommender Systems • Systems for recommending items (e.g. books, movies, music, web pages, newsgroup messages) to users based on examples of their preferences. Recommender Systems • Many on-line stores provide recommendations (e.g. Amazon, Netflix). • Recommenders have been shown to substantially Collaborative Filtering & increase sales at on-line stores. Content-Based Recommending • There are two basic approaches to recommending: Slides based on R. Mooney’s class – Collaborative Filtering (a.k.a. social filtering) – Content-based 1 2 Book Recommender Personalization • Recommenders are instances of personalization Red software. Mars • Personalization concerns adapting to the individual Found ation needs, interests, and preferences of each user. • Includes: Juras- Machine User sic Park – Recommending Learning Profile Lost – Filtering World – Predicting 2001 Neuro- 2010 • From a business perspective, it is viewed as part of mancer Customer Relationship Management (CRM). Differ- ence Engine 3 4 1

  2. Collaborative Filtering Collaborative Filtering • Maintain a database of many users’ ratings of a variety of items. • For a given user, find other similar users whose A 9 A A 5 A A 6 A 10 User B 3 B B 3 B B 4 B 4 ratings strongly correlate with the current user. C C 9 C C 8 C C 8 Database : : : : : : : : : : . . Z 5 Z 10 Z 7 Z Z Z 1 • Recommend items rated highly by these similar users, but not rated by the current user. A 9 A 10 • Almost all existing commercial recommenders use B 3 B 4 Correlation C C 8 this approach (e.g. Amazon). Match User rating? User rating : : . . User rating User rating Z 5 Z 1 User rating User rating A 9 Extract Active B 3 C C Recommendations User Item recommendation . . 5 6 Z 5 Collaborative Filtering Method Find users with similar ratings/interests 1. Weight all users with respect to similarity with the active user. 2. Select a subset of the users ( neighbors ) to A 9 A A 5 A A 6 A 10 User B 3 B B 3 B B 4 B 4 use as predictors. C C 9 C C 8 C C 8 Database : : : : : : : : : : . . Z 5 Z 10 Z 7 Z Z Z 1 3. Normalize ratings and compute a prediction from a weighted combination of r u the selected neighbors’ ratings. Which users have similar ratings? 4. Present items with highest predicted ratings as recommendations. A 9 r a Active B 3 C User . . 7 8 Z 5 2

  3. Similarity Weighting Covariance and Standard Deviation • Typically use Pearson correlation coefficient between • Covariance:  m   ratings for active user, a , and another user, u . ( )( ) r r r r a , i a u , i u   i 1 covar ( r , r ) covar ( , ) a u r r m ,  a u c   m a u  r r r , x i a u   i 1 r x m r a and r u are the ratings vectors for the m items rated by both a and u • Standard Deviation: r i,j is user i ’s rating for item j m   2 ( ) r r x , i x    i 1 r x m 9 10 Relationship between Covariance and Neighbor Selection Cosine Similarity • For a given active user, a , select correlated • Covariance: users to serve as source of predictions. – Standard approach is to use the most similar n users, u , based on similarity weights, w a,u • Cosine similarity: – Alternate approach is to include all users whose similarity weight is above a given threshold. Sim( r a , r u )> t a 11 12 3

  4. Significance Weighting Rating Prediction (Version 0) • Predict a rating, p a,i , for each item i , for active user, a , • Important not to trust correlations based on by using the n selected neighbor users, u  {1,2,… n }. very few co-rated items. • Weight users’ ratings contribution by their similarity to • Include significance weights , s a,u , based on the active user. number of co-rated items, m . ,  w s c , , a u a u a u n     1 if m 50 w r   a , u u , i   m  s    1 p u , if 50 a u m   a , i   n  50 w a , u  u 1 13 14 Rating Prediction (Version 1) Problems with Collaborative Filtering • Predict a rating, p a,i , for each item i , for active user, a , • Cold Start : There needs to be enough other users by using the n selected neighbor users, u  {1,2,… n }. already in the system to find a match. • Sparsity : If there are many items to be • To account for users different ratings levels, base recommended, even if there are many users, the predictions on differences from a user’s average rating. user/ratings matrix is sparse, and it is hard to find • Weight users’ ratings contribution by their similarity to users that have rated the same items. the active user. • First Rater : Cannot recommend an item that has n   not been previously rated. ( ) w r r , , a u u i u – New items    1 u p r a , i a n  – Esoteric items w a , u • Popularity Bias : Cannot recommend items to  u 1 someone with unique tastes. – Tends to recommend popular items. 15 16 4

  5. Recommendation vs Web Ranking Content-Based Recommending • Recommendations are based on information on the content of items rather than on other users’ Text Content User click data opinions. User rating Link popularity Content • Uses a machine learning algorithm to induce a profile of the users preferences from examples based on a featural description of content. • Applications: Item recommendation Web page ranking – News article recommendation 17 18 Advantages of Content-Based Approach Disadvantages of Content-Based Method • No need for data on other users. • Requires content that can be encoded as – No cold-start or sparsity problems. meaningful features. • Able to recommend to users with unique tastes. • Users’ tastes must be represented as a learnable function of these content features. • Able to recommend new and unpopular items • Unable to exploit quality judgments of other – No first-rater problem. users. • Can provide explanations of recommended – Unless these are somehow included in the items by listing content-features that caused an content features. item to be recommended. 19 20 5

  6. LIBRA LIBRA System Learning Intelligent Book Recommending Agent • Content-based recommender for books using Amazon Pages information about titles extracted from Amazon. LIBRA Database Information • Uses information extraction from the web to Extraction organize text into fields: – Author – Title Rated – Editorial Reviews Examples Machine Learning – Customer Comments Learner – Subject terms Recommendations – Related authors 1.~~~~~~ User Profile – Related titles 2.~~~~~~~ 3.~~~~~ : : Predictor : 21 22 Sample Extracted Amazon Book Libra Content Information Information • Libra uses this extracted information to Title: <The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence> Author: <Ray Kurzweil> form “bags of words” for the following Price: <11.96> Publication Date: <January 2000> slots: ISBN: <0140282025> – Author Related Titles: <Title: <Robot: Mere Machine or Transcendent Mind> Author: <Hans Moravec> > – Title … Reviews: <Author: <Amazon.com Reviews> Text: <How much do we humans…> > – Description (reviews and comments) … – Subjects Comments: <Stars: <4> Author: <Stephen A. Haines> Text:<Kurzweil has …> > … – Related Titles Related Authors: <Hans P. Moravec> <K. Eric Drexler>… Subjects: <Science/Mathematics> <Computers> <Artificial Intelligence> … – Related Authors 23 24 6

  7. Libra Overview Bayesian Categorization in LIBRA • User rates selected titles on a 1 to 10 scale. • Model is generalized to generate a vector of bags of words (one bag for each slot). • Use a Bayesian algorithm to learn – Instances of the same word in different slots are treated – Rating 6 – 10: Positive as separate features: – Rating 1 – 5: Negative • “Chrichton” in author vs. “Chrichton” in description • The learned classifier is used to rank all other books • Training examples are treated as weighted positive as recommendations. or negative examples when estimating conditional • User can also provide explicit positive/negative probability parameters: keywords, which are used as priors to bias the role – An example with rating 1  r  10 is given: of these features in categorization. positive probability: ( r – 1)/9 negative probability: (10 – r )/9 25 26 Implementation & Weighting Experimental Method • 10-fold cross-validation to generate learning curves. • Stopwords removed from all bags. • Measured several metrics on independent test data: • A book’s title and author are added to its own – Precision at top 3: % of the top 3 that are positive related title and related author slots. – Rating of top 3: Average rating assigned to top 3 • All probabilities are smoothed using Laplace – Rank Correlation : Spearman’s, r s , between system’s and estimation to account for small sample size. user’s complete rankings. • Test ablation of related author and related title slots • Feature strength of word w k appearing in a (LIBRA-NR). slot s j : – Test influence of information generated by Amazon’s P ( w | positive , s ) collaborative approach.  k j strength ( , ) log w s k j ( | negative, s ) P w j k 27 28 7

Recommend

More recommend