Diversity and novelty for recommendation system

3,171 views

Published on

A simple survey of Diversity and novelty metrics for recommender systems

Published in: Education, Technology, Career
0 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,171
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
84
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
123
Comments
0
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Diversity and novelty for recommendation system

  1. 1. A simple survey of Diversity andnovelty metrics for recommendersystems Reporter: 孙建凯 2012.07.11
  2. 2. Move beyond accuracy metrics while the majority of algorithms proposed in recommender systems literature have focused on improving recommendation accuracy other important aspects of recommendation quality, such as the diversity of recommendations, have often been overlooked. The recommendations that are most accurate according to the standard metrics are sometimes not the recommendations that are most useful to users[1] 2 Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  3. 3. Diversity and Novelty Accurate is not always good: How Accuracy Metrics have hurt Recommender Systems GroupLensResearch,CHI06  Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  4. 4. Accuracy does not tell the whole story Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  5. 5. Diversity Individual Diversity  Aggregate Diversity Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  6. 6. Individual Diversity Diversity Difficulty[3] Average dissimilarity between all pairs of items recommended to a given user(intra-list similarity) [2,4] Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  7. 7. Diversity Difficulty What We Talk About When We Talk About Diversity [DDR’12 Northeastern University USA] Like query difficulty in IR For a specific query and corpus, query difficulty is a measure of how successful the average search engine should be at ad-hoc retrieval. Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  8. 8. Diversity Difficulty Diversity Difficulty is defined with respect to a query and a corpus. Describes diversity-the number of subtopics which are covered by a list; Describes novelty-which is inversely proportional to the number of times a list repeats a subtopic Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  9. 9. Finding needles in the haystack Imagine a query with 10 subtopics ,1000 documents relevant to only the first subtopic, and each of the remaining subtopics covered by a single, unique document. On the other hand ,if there are large numbers of documents relevant to multiple subtopics, it would be easy to produce a diversity list. Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  10. 10. Diversity Difficulty function The maximum amount of diversity achievable by any ranked list-dmax The ease with a system can produce a diverse ranked list.-dmean Harmonic function Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  11. 11. Examples Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  12. 12. Improving Recommendation Lists ThroughTopic Diversification Introduce the intra-list similarity metric to access the topic diversification of recommendation lists and the topic diversification approach for decreasing the intra-list similarity Average dissimilarity between all pairs of items recommended to a given user Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  13. 13. Intra-list Similarity Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  14. 14. Taxonomy-based similarity Metrics Instantiate c with their metric for taxonomy- driven filtering.[5] Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  15. 15. Topic Diversification AlgorithmAlgorithm A brief textual sketch Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  16. 16. Experiments precision  diversity
  17. 17. Aggregate Diversity improving recommendation Diversity using ranking- based techniques[IEEE transaction’12] Use the total number of distinct items recommended across all users as an aggregate diversity measure, define as follows: Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  18. 18. General overview of ranking-basedapproaches for improving diversity Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  19. 19. Re-Ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  20. 20. Other Re-ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  21. 21. Other Re-ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  22. 22. Other Re-ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  23. 23. Other Re-ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  24. 24. Other Re-ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  25. 25. Other Re-ranking Approach Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  26. 26. Combining Ranking Approaches Many possible ways to combine several ranking functions In this paper , linear combination Open issue: letor ? Neural network? Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  27. 27. Entropy A study of Heterogeneity in Recommendations for a social Music Service[6] Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  28. 28. Open issue:probability Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  29. 29. EntropyAggregate Entropy: Individual Entropy: Item popularity  subtopic popularity? between lists? Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  30. 30. Bipartite network Bipartite network projection and personal recommendation[Tao Zhou, Physical Review] Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems[Tao Zhou] Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  31. 31. Illustration of resource-allocationprocess in bipartite network Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  32. 32. Solving the apparent diversity-accuracydilemmaheats probs Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  33. 33. Hybrid Methodsweight hybrid Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  34. 34. Diversity Measure Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  35. 35. Surprisal/novelty Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  36. 36. Results-why better? Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  37. 37. Surprise me Tangent: A novel, ‘surprise me’, recommendation algorithm [kdd’09] Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  38. 38. Framework of Tangent Algorithm Suggest items which are not only relevant to user preference but also have a large connectivity to other groups. Consisting three parts as follows: 1 Calculate relevance score(RS) for each node 2 Calculate bridging score(BRS) for each node 3 Compute the Tangent score by somehow merging two criteria above Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  39. 39. Case study Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  40. 40. Case study Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  41. 41. Call for papers September 20, 2012 Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  42. 42. Reference 1. Accurate is not always good: How Accuracy Metrics have hurt Recommender Systems 2.improving recommendation Diversity using ranking-based techniques 3. What We Talk About When We Talk About Diversity 4. Improving Recommendation Lists Through Topic Diversification 5. Taxonomy-driven computation of product recommendations Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  43. 43. Reference 6. A study of Heterogeneity in Recommendations for a social Music Service 7. Bipartite network projection and personal recommendation 8.Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems 9. Tangent: A novel, ‘surprise me’, recommendation algorithm Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU
  44. 44.  thanks Copyright © 2012 by IRLAB@SDU

×