• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Predicting performance in Recommender Systems - Slides
 

Predicting performance in Recommender Systems - Slides

on

  • 802 views

Slides presented in the Doctoral Symposium of the ACM Recommender Systems 2011

Slides presented in the Doctoral Symposium of the ACM Recommender Systems 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
802
Views on SlideShare
802
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Predicting performance in Recommender Systems - Slides Predicting performance in Recommender Systems - Slides Presentation Transcript

    • Predicting Performance in Recommender Systems Alejandro BellogínSupervised by Pablo Castells and Iván Cantador Escuela Politécnica Superior Universidad Autónoma de Madrid @abellogin alejandro.bellogin@uam.esACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • MotivationIs it possible to predict the accuracy of a recommendation? 2 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Hypothesis Data that are commonly available to a Recommender System could containsignals that enable an a priori estimation of the success of the recommendation 3 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Research Questions1. Is it possible to define a performance prediction theory for recommender systems in a sound, formal way?2. Is it possible to adapt query performance techniques (from IR) to the recommendation task?3. What kind of evaluation should be performed? Is IR evaluation still valid in our problem?4. What kind of recommendation problems can these models be applied to? 4 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Predicting Performance in Recommender SystemsRQ1. Is it possible to define a performance prediction theory for recommender systems in a sound, formal way? a) Define a predictor of performance  = (u, i, r, …) b) Agree on a performance metric  = (u, i, r, …) c) Check predictive power by measuring correlation corr([(x1), …, (xn)], [(x1), …, (xn)]) d) Evaluate final performance: dynamic vs static 5 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Predicting Performance in Recommender SystemsRQ2. Is it possible to adapt query performance techniques (from IR) to the recommendation task? In IR: “Estimation of the system’s performance in response to a specific query” Several predictors proposed We focus on query clarity  user clarity 6 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • User clarity It captures uncertainty in user’s data • Distance between the user’s and the system’s probability model  px |u  user’s model c la rity  u    p  x | u  lo g    p x  x X  c  system’s model • X may be: users, items, ratings, or a combination 7 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • User clarity Three user clarity formulations: Background Name Vocabulary User model model Rating-based Ratings p r |u  pc  r  Item-based Items p i | u  pc i Item-and-rating-based Items rated by the user p  r | i, u  pml  r | i   px |u  user model c la rity  u    p  x | u  lo g    p x  x X  c  background model 8 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • User clarity Seven user clarity models implemented: Name Formulation User model Background model RatUser Rating-based pU r | i, u  ; pU R  i | u  pc  r  RatItem Rating-based pI r | i, u  ; pU R  i | u  pc  r  ItemSimple Item-based pR i | u  pc i pU R i | u  pc i ItemUser Item-based IRUser Item-and-rating-based pU r | i, u  pml  r | i  IRItem Item-and-rating-based pI r | i, u  pml  r | i  IRUserItem Item-and-rating-based pU I r | i, u  pml  r | i  9 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • User clarity Predictor that captures uncertainty in user’s data Different formulations capture different nuances More dimensions in RS than in IR: user, items, ratings, features, … 0.7 RatItem p_c(x) 0.6 p(x|u1) p(x|u2) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 4 3 5 2 1 Ratings 4 3 5 2 1 10 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Predicting Performance in Recommender SystemsRQ3. What kind of evaluation should be performed? Is IR evaluation still valid in our problem? In IR: Mean Average Precision + correlation  50 points (queries) vs 1000+ points (users) Performance metric is not clear: error-based, precision-based?  What is performance?  It may depend on the final r ~ 0.57 application Possible bias  E.g., towards users or items with larger profiles 11 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Predicting Performance in Recommender SystemsRQ3. What kind of evaluation should be performed? Is IR evaluation still valid in our problem? In IR: Mean Average Precision + correlation  50 points (queries) vs 1000+ points (users) Performance metric is not clear: error-based, precision-based?  What is performance?  It may depend on the final application Possible bias  E.g., towards users or items with larger profiles 12 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Predicting Performance in Recommender SystemsRQ4. What kind of recommendation problems can these models be applied to? Whenever a combination of strategies is available Example 1: dynamic neighbor weighting Example 2: dynamic ensemble recommendation 13 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Dynamic neighbor weighting The user’s neighbors are weighted according to their similarity Can we take into account the uncertainty in neighbor’s data? User neighbor weighting [1] • Static: g u,i  C  s im  u , v   r a t  v , i  v N [ u ] • Dynamic: g u,i  C  γ  v   s im  u , v   r a t  v , i  v N [ u ] 14 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Dynamic hybrid recommendation Weight is the same for every item and user (learnt from training) What about boosting those users predicted to perform better for some recommender? Hybrid recommendation [3] • Static: g  u , i     g R 1  u , i   1     g R 2  u , i  • Dynamic: g  u , i   γ  u   g R 1  u , i   1  γ  u   g R2  u , i  15 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Results – Neighbor weighting Correlation analysis [1] • With respect to Neighbor Goodness metric: “how good a neighbor is to her vicinity” Performance [1] (MAE = Mean Average Error, the lower the better) 0,98 Standard CF 0,88 b) Neighbourhood size: 500 Standard CF 0,96 Clarity-enhanced CF 0,87 Clarity-enhanced CF 0,94 0,86 0,92 0,85 0,90 MAE MAE 0,84 0,88 0,86 0,83 0,84 0,82 0,82 0,81 0,80 0,80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of ratings for training Neighbourhood size 16 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Results – Neighbour weighting Correlation analysis [1] • With respect to Neighbour Goodness metric: “how good a neighbour is to her vicinity” Positive, although not very strong correlations Performance [1] (MAE = Mean Average Error, the lower the better) 0,98 Standard CF 0,88 b) Neighbourhood size: 500 Standard CF 0,96 Clarity-enhanced CF 0,87 Clarity-enhanced CF 0,94 0,86 0,92 0,90 Improvement of over 5% wrt. the baseline 0,85 MAE MAE 0,84 0,88 Plus, it does not degrade performance 0,83 0,86 0,84 0,82 0,82 0,81 0,80 0,80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of ratings for training Neighbourhood size 17 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Results – Hybrid recommendation  Correlation analysis [2] • With respect to nDCG@50 (nDCG, normalized Discount Cumulative Gain)  PerformanceP@50 [3] nDCG@50 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 H3 H4 H1 H2 H3 H4tive Static Adaptive Static 18 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Results – Hybrid recommendation  Correlation analysis [2] • With respect to nDCG@50 (nDCG, normalized Discount Cumulative Gain) In average, most of the predictors obtain positive, strong correlations  PerformanceP@50 [3] nDCG@50 0,2 0,15 Dynamic strategy outperforms static for 0,1 different combination of recommenders 0,05 0 H3 H4 H1 H2 H3 H4tive Static Adaptive Static 19 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Summary Inferring user’s performance in a recommender system Different adaptations of query clarity techniques Building dynamic recommendation strategies • Dynamic neighbor weighting: according to expected goodness of neighbor • Dynamic hybrid recommendation: based on predicted performance Encouraging results • Positive predictive power (good correlations between predictors and metrics) • Dynamic strategies obtain better (or equal) results than static 20 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Related publications [1] A Performance Prediction Aproach to Enhance Collaborative Filtering Performance. A. Bellogín and P. Castells. In ECIR 2010. [2] Predicting the Performance of Recommender Systems: An Information Theoretic Approach. A. Bellogín, P. Castells, and I. Cantador. In ICTIR 2011. [3] Performance Prediction for Dynamic Ensemble Recommender Systems. A. Bellogín, P. Castells, and I. Cantador. In press. 21 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Future Work Explore other input sources • Item predictors • Social links • Implicit data (with time) We need a theoretical background • Why do some predictors work better? Larger datasets 22 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • FW – Other input sources Item predictors Social links Implicit data (with time) Item predictors could be very useful: • Different recommender behavior depending on item attributes • They would allow to capture popularity, diversity, etc. 23 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • FW – Other input sources Item predictors Social links Implicit data (with time) First results using social-based predictors • Combination of social and CF • Graph-based measures as predictors • “Indicators” of the user strength 24 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • FW – Theoretical background We need a theoretical background • Why do some predictors work better? 25 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Thank you! Predicting Performance in Recommender Systems Alejandro Bellogín Supervied by Pablo Castells and Iván Cantador Escuela Politécnica Superior Universidad Autónoma de Madrid @abellogin alejandro.bellogin@uam.esAcknowledgements to the National Science Foundation for the funding to attend the conference. 26 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA IRG IR Group @ UAM
    • Reviewer’s comments: Confidence Other methods to measure self-performance of RS o Confidence These methods capture the performance of the RS, not user’s performance 27 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA
    • Reviewer’s comments: Neighbor’s goodness Neighbor goodness seems to be a little bit ad-hoc We need a measurable definition of neighbor performance NG(u) ~ “total MAE reduction by u” ~ “MAE without u” – “MAE with u” 1 1   C E U  u   v    CEU v | R U   u  | v U   u  | R U   u  | v U   u  CE X v   | rX v,i   r v,i  | i:r a t ( v ,i )   Some attempts in trust research: sign and error deviation [Rafter et al. 2009] 28 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA
    • Reviewer’s comments: Neighbor’s weighting issues Neighbor size vs dynamic neighborhood weighting So far, only dynamic weighting • Same training time than static weighting Future work: dynamic size Apply this method for larger datasets Current work Apply this method for other CF methods (e.g., latent factor models, SVD) More difficult to identify the combination Future work 29 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA
    • Reviewer’s comments: Dynamic hybrid issues Other methods to combine recommenders o Stacking o Multi-linear weighting We focus on linear weighted hybrid recommendation Future work: cascade, stacking 30 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2011 – Doctoral Symposium October 23, Chicago, USA