### SlideShare for iOS

by Linkedin Corporation

FREE - On the App Store

talk at KTH 14 May 2014 about matrix factorization, different latent and neighborhood models, graphs and energy diffusion for recommender systems, as well as what makes good/bad recommendations.

talk at KTH 14 May 2014 about matrix factorization, different latent and neighborhood models, graphs and energy diffusion for recommender systems, as well as what makes good/bad recommendations.

- Total Views
- 876
- Views on SlideShare
- 869
- Embed Views

- Likes
- 7
- Downloads
- 40
- Comments
- 2

https://www.linkedin.com | 6 |

http://www.linkedin.com | 1 |

- 1. Recommender Systems, MaTRICES and Graphs Roelof Pieters roelof@vionlabs.com 14 May 2014 @ KTH
- 2. About me Interests in: • IR, RecSys, Big Data, ML, NLP, SNA, Graphs, CV, Data Visualization, Discourse Analysis History: • 2002-2006: almost-BA Computer Science @ Amsterdam Tech Uni (dropped out in 2006) • 2006-2010: BA Cultural Anthropology @ Leiden & Amsterdam Uni’s • 2010-2012: MA Social Anthropology @ Stockholm Uni • 2011-Current: Working @ Vionlabs se.linkedin.com/in/roelofpieters/ roelof@vionlabs.com
- 3. Say Hello! St: Eriksgatan 63 112 33 Stockholm - Sweden Email: hello@vionlabs.com Tech company here in Stockholm with Geeks and Movie lovers… Since 2009: • Digital ecosystems for network operators, cable TV companies, and ﬁlm distributor such as Tele2/Comviq, Cyberia, and Warner Bros • Various software and hardware hacks for different companies: Webbstory, Excito, Spotify, Samsung Focus since 2012: • Movie and TV recommendation service FoorSee
- 4. WE LOVE MOVIES….
- 5. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 6. Outline •Recommender Systems •Taxonomy •History •Evaluating Recommenders •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 7. Information Retrieval • Recommender Systems as part of Information Retrieval Document(s)Document(s)Document(s)Document(s)Document(s) Retrieval USER Query • Information Retrieval is the activity of obtaining information resources relevant to an information need from a collection of information resources.
- 8. IR: Measure Success • Recall: success in retrieving all correct documents • Precision: success in retrieving the most relevant documents • Given a set of terms and a set of document terms select only the most relevant documents (precision), and preferably all the relevant ones (recall)
- 9. “generate meaningful recommendations to a (collection of) user(s) for items or products that might interest them” Recommender Systems
- 10. Where can RS be found? • Movie recommendation (Netﬂix) • Related product recommendation (Amazon) • Web page ranking (Google) • Social recommendation (Facebook) • News content recommendation (Yahoo) • Priority inbox & spam ﬁltering (Google) • Online dating (OK Cupid) • Computational Advertising (Yahoo)
- 11. Outline •Recommender Systems •Taxonomy •History •Evaluating Recommenders •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 12. Taxonomy of RS • Collaborative Filtering (CF) • Content Based Filtering (CBF) • Knowledge Based Filtering (KBF) • Hybrid
- 13. Taxonomy of RS • Collaborative Filtering (CF)! • Content Based Filtering (CBF) • Knowledge Based Filtering (KBF) • Hybrid
- 14. Collaborative Filtering: • relies on past user behavior • Implicit feedback • Explicit feedback • requires no gathering of external data • sparse data • domain free • cold start problem 16
- 15. Collaborative (Dietmar et. al. At ‘AI 2011) User based Collaborative Filtering
- 16. User based Collaborative Filtering
- 17. Taxonomy of RS • Collaborative Filtering (CF) • Content Based Filtering (CBF)! • Knowledge Based Filtering (KBF) • Hybrid
- 18. Content Filtering • creates proﬁle for user/movie • requires gathering external data • dense data • domain-bounded • no cold start problem 20
- 19. Content based (Dietmar et. al. At ‘AI 2013) Item based Collaborative Filtering
- 20. Item based Collaborative Filtering
- 21. Taxonomy of RS • Collaborative Filtering (CF) • Content Based Filtering (CBF) • Knowledge Based Filtering (KBF)! • Hybrid
- 22. Knowledge based (Dietmar et. al. At ‘AI 2013) Knowledge based Content Filtering
- 23. Knowledge based Content Filtering
- 24. Knowledge based Content Filtering
- 25. Taxonomy of RS • Collaborative Filtering (CF) • Content Based Filtering (CBF) • Knowledge Based Filtering (KBF) • Hybrid
- 26. Hybrid (Dietmar et. al. At ‘AI 2013)
- 27. Outline •Recommender Systems •Taxonomy •History •Evaluating Recommenders •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 28. History • 1992-1995: Manual Collaborative Filtering • 1994-2000: Automatic Collaborative Filtering + Content • 2000+: Commercialization…
- 29. TQL: Tapestry (1992) (Golberg et. al 1992)
- 30. Grouplens (1994) (Resnick et. al 1994)
- 31. 2000+: Commercial CF’s • 2001: Amazon starts using item based collaborative ﬁltering (Patent ﬁled at 1998) • 2000: Pandora starts music genome project, where each song“is analyzed using up to 450 distinct musical characteristics by a trained music analyst.” • 2006-2009: Netﬂix Contents: 2 of many algorithms put in use by Netﬂix replacing “Cinematch": Matrix Factorization (SVD) and Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBM) (http://www.pandora.com/about/mgp) (http://www.netﬂixprize.com)
- 32. Annual Conferences • RecSys (since 2007) http://recsys.acm.org • SIGIR (since 1978) http://sigir.org/ • KDD (ofﬁcial since 1998) http://www.kdd.org/ • KDD Cup
- 33. Ongoing Discussion • Evaluation • Scalability • Similarity versus Diversity • Cold start (items + users) • Fraud • Imbalanced dataset or Sparsity • Personalization • Filter Bubbles • Privacy • Data Collection
- 34. Outline •Recommender Systems •Taxonomy •History •Evaluating Recommenders •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 35. Evaluating Recommenders • Least mean squares prediction error • RMSE • Similarity measure enough ? rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 36. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 37. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 38. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 39. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 40. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 41. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 42. Evaluating Recommenders rmse(S) = s |S| 1 X (i,u)2S (ˆrui rui)2
- 43. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 44. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Content based Algorithms * •Collaborative Algorithms * •Classiﬁcation •Rating/Ranking * •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 45. • content is exploited (item to item ﬁltering) • content model: • keywords (ie TF-IDF) • similarity/distance measures: • Euclidean distance: • L1 and L2-norm • Jaccard distance Content-based Filtering • (adjusted) Cosine distance • Edit distance • Hamming distance
- 46. • similarity/distance measures: • Euclidean distance • Jaccard distance • Cosine distance Content-based Filtering dot product x.y is 1 × 2 + 2 × 1 + (−1) × 1 = 3 x = [1,2, −1] and = [2,1,1]. L2-norm = √12 + 22 + (−1)2 = 6 ie:
- 47. • similarity/distance measures: • Euclidean distance • Jaccard distance • Cosine distance Content-based Filtering dot product x.y is 1 × 2 + 2 × 1 + (−1) × 1 = 3 x = [1,2, −1] and = [2,1,1]. cosine of angle: 3/(√6√6) =1/2 cos distance of 1/2: 60 degrees, L2-norm = √12 + 22 + (−1)2 = 6 ie:
- 48. Examples • Item to Query • Item to Item • Item to User
- 49. Examples • Item to Query! • Item to Item • Item to User
- 50. Example: Item to Query Title Price Genre Rating The Avengers 5 Action 3,7 Spiderman II 10 Action 4,5 user query q : “price (6) AND genre(Adventure) AND rating (4)” weights of features: 0.22 0.450.33 Sim(q,”The Avengers”) = 0.22 x (1 - 1/25) + 0.33 x 0 + 0.45 x (1 - 0.3/5) = 0.6342 1-25 price range no matchdiff of 1 diff of 0.3 0-5 rating range Sim(q,”Spiderman II”) = 0.5898 (0.6348 if we count rating 4.5 > 4 as match) Weighted Sum:
- 51. Examples • Item to Query • Item to Item! • Item to User
- 52. Example: Item to Item Similarity Title ReleaseTime Genres Actors Rating TA 90s, start 90s, 1993 Action, Comedy, Romance X,Y,Z 3,7 S2 90s, start 90s, 1991 Action W,X,Z 4,5 numeric Array of Booleans Sim(X,Y) = 1 - d(X,Y) or Sim(X,Y) = exp(- d(X,Y)) where 0 ≤ wi ≤ 1, and i=1..n (number of features). Set of hierarchical related symbols
- 53. Title ReleaseTime Genres Actors Rating TA 90s, start 90s, 1993 Action, Comedy, Romance X,Y,Z 3,7 S2 90s, start 90s, 1991 Action W,X,Z 4,5 numeric Array of Booleans Set of hierarchical related symbols X1 = (90s,S90s,1993) X2 = (1,1,1) X3 = (0,1,1,1) X4 = 3.7 TA W 0.5 0.3 0.2 X1 = (90s,S90s,1991) X2 = (1,0,0) X3 = (1,1,0,1) X4 = 4.5 S2 weights of feature all the same weights of categories within “Release time” different Example: Item to Item Similarity
- 54. X1 = (90s,S90s,1993) X2 = (1,1,1) X3 = (0,1,1,1) X4 = 3.7 TA W 0.5 0.3 0.2 X1 = (90s,S90s,1991) X2 = (1,0,0) X3 = (1,1,0,1) X4 = 4.5 S2 exp(- (1/√4) √d1(X1,Y1)2 +…+d4(X4,Y4 )2 ) = exp(- ) exp(-(1/√4) √(1-(0.3+0.5))2 + (1-1/3)2 +(1-2/4)2 + (1-0.8/5)2 ) = exp(-(1/√4) √(1.5745 ) = exp(-0.339) = 0.534 Sim( dest1,dest2 ) = Example: Item to Item Similarity
- 55. (content factors)
- 56. Examples • Item to Query • Item to Item • Item to User
- 57. Example: Item to User Title Roelof Klas Mo Max X (Action) X ( ) The Avengers 5 1 2 5 0.8 0.1 Spiderman II ? 2 1 ? 0.9 0.2 American Pie 2 5 ? 1 0.05 0.9 X(1) = 1 0.8 0.1 For each user u, learn a parameter ∈ R(n+1) . Predict user u as rating movie i with ( )T x(i)
- 58. Title Roelof Klas Mo Max X (Action) X ( ) The Avengers 5 1 2 5 0.8 0.1 Spiderman II ? 2 1 ? 0.9 0.2 American Pie 2 5 ? 1 0.05 0.9 Mo ( (3) ) and Klas ( (2) ) predict rating Mo ( (3) ), American pie (X(3) ) (2) (3)(1) (4) X(1) X(2) X(3) X(3) = 1 0.05 0.9 temp (3) = 0 0 5 Example: Item to User
- 59. Title Roelof Klas Mo Max X (Action) X ( ) The Avengers 5 1 2 5 0.8 0.1 Spiderman II ? 2 1 ? 0.9 0.2 American Pie 2 5 ? 1 0.05 0.9 Mo ( (3) ) and Klas ( (2) ) predict rating Mo ( (3) ), American pie (X(3) ) (2) (3)(1) (4) X(1) X(2) X(3) 1 0.05 0.9 0 0 5 Example: Item to User dot product ≈ 4.5
- 60. Title Roelof Klas Mo Max X (Action) X ( ) The Avengers 5 1 2 5 0.8 0.1 Spiderman II ? 2 1 ? 0.9 0.2 American Pie 2 5 4.5 1 0.05 0.9 Mo ( (3) ) and Klas ( (2) ) predict rating Mo ( (3) ), American pie (X(3) ) (2) (3)(1) (4) X(1) X(2) X(3) 1 0.05 0.9 0 0 5 Example: Item to User dot product ≈ 4.5
- 61. Title Roelof Klas Mo Max X (Action) X ( ) The Avengers 5 1 2 5 0.8 0.1 Spiderman II ≈4 2 1 ≈4 0.9 0.2 American Pie 2 5 4.5 1 0.05 0.9 How do we learn these user factor parameters? (2) (3)(1) (4) X(1) X(2) X(3) Example: Item to User
- 62. problem formulation:! • r(i,u) = 1 if user u has rated movie i, otherwise 0 • y (i,u) = rating by user u on movie i (if deﬁned) • (u) = parameter vector for user u • x (i) = feature vector for movie i • For user u, movie i, predicted rating: ( ) T (x (i) ) • temp m (u) = # of movies rated by user u min ∑ ( ( (u))T!(i) - "(i,u) )2 + ∑ ( )2 ƛ —— 2 # k=1 (u) (u) 1 2 —— m(u)m(u) Example: Item to User Say what?• learning (u) = (A. Ng. 2013)
- 63. min ∑ ∑ (( (u))T!(i) - "(i,u))2 + ∑ ∑ ( )2 ƛ — 2 # u=1 problem formulation:! • learning (u): • learning (1), (2) , … , # : # 1 2 — min ∑ ( ( (u))T!(i) - "(i,u) )2 + ∑ ( )2 ƛ — 2 # k=1 (u) (u) 1 2 — #u k=1 (u) regularization term # squared error term actualpredicted learn for “all” users Example: Item to Userremember: y = rating parameter vector for a user x = feature vector for a movie
- 64. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Content based Algorithms * •Collaborative Algorithms * •Classiﬁcation •Rating/Ranking * •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 65. Collaborative Filtering: • User-based approach! • Find a set of users Si who rated item j, that are most similar to ui • compute predicted Vij score as a function of ratings of item j given by Si (usually weighted linear combination) • Item-based approach! • Find a set of most similar items Sj to the item j which were rated by ui • compute predicted Vij score as a function of ui's ratings for Sj
- 66. Collaborative Filtering: • Two primary models: • Neighborhood models! • focus on relationships between movies or users • Latent Factor models • focus on factors inferred from (rating) patterns • computerized alternative to naive content creation • predicts rating by dot product of user and movie locations on known dimensions 68 (Sarwar, B. et al. 2001)
- 67. Neighborhood (user oriented) 69 (pic from Koren et al. 2009)
- 68. Neighbourhood Methods • Problems: • Ratings biased per user • Ratings biased towards certain items • Ratings change over time • Ratings can rapidly change through real time events (Oscar nomination, etc) • Bias correction needed
- 69. Latent Factors 71 • latent factor models map users and items into a latent feature space • user's feature vector denotes the user's afﬁnity to each of the features • item's feature vector represents how much the item itself is related to the features. • rating is approximated by the dot product of the user feature vector and the item feature vector.
- 70. Latent Factors (users+movies) 72 (pic from Koren et al. 2009)
- 71. Latent Factors (x+y) 73 (http://xkcd.com/388/) xkcd.com
- 72. Latent Factor models • Matrix Factorization: • characterizes items + users by vectors of factors inferred from (ratings or other user- item related) patterns • Given a list of users and items, and user-item interactions, predict user behavior • can deal with sparse data (matrix) • can incorporate additional information 74
- 73. Matrix Factorization • Dimensionality reduction • Principal Components Analysis, PCA • Singular Value Decomposition, SVD • Non Negative Matrix Factorization, NNMF
- 74. Matrix Factorization: SVD SVD, Singular Value Decomposition • transforms correlated variables into a set of uncorrelated ones that better expose the various relationships among the original data items. • identiﬁes and orders the dimensions along which data points exhibit the most variation. • allowing us to ﬁnd the best approximation of the original data points using fewer dimensions.
- 75. SVD: Matrix Decomposition 77 U: document-to-concept similarity matrix ! V: term-to-concept similarity matrix ! ƛ : its diagonal elements: ‘strength’ of each concept ! (pic by Xavier Amatriain 2013)
- 76. SVD for Collaborative Filtering each item i associated with vector qi ∈ ℝf each user u associated with vector pu ∈ ℝf qi measures extent to which item possesses factors pu measures extent of interest for user in items which possess high on factors user-item interactions modeled as dot products within the factor space, measured by qi T pu user u rating on item i approximates: rui = qi T pu 78 ^
- 77. SVD for Collaborative Filtering • compute u,i mappings: qi,pu ∈ ℝ f • factor user, item matrix • imputation (Sarwar et.al. 2000) • model only observed ratings + regularization (Funk 2006; Koren 2008) • learn factor vectors qi and pu by minimizing (regularized) squared error on set of known ratings: approximate user u rating of item i, denoted by rui, leading to Learning Algorithm: 79 ^
- 78. SVD Visualized regression line reducing two dimensional space into one dimensional one
- 79. reducing three dimensional (multidimensional) space into two dimensional plane SVD Visualized
- 80. SVD: Code Away! <Coding Time> 82
- 81. Stochastic Gradient Descent • optimizable by Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) (Funk 2006) • incremental learning • loops trough ratings and computes prediction error for predicted rating on rui : • modify parameters by magnitude proportional to y in opposite direction of the gradient, giving learning rule: 83 and
- 82. Gradient Descent <Coding Time> 84
- 83. Alternating Least Squares • optimizable by Alternating Least Squares (ALS) (2006) • both qi and pu unknown: minimum function not convex —> can not be solved for a minimum. • ALS rotates between ﬁxing qi’s and pu’s • Fix qi or pu makes optimization problem quadratic —> one not optimized can now be solved • qi and pu independently computed of other item/user factors: parallelization • Best for implicit data (dense matrix) 85
- 84. Alternating Least Squares • rotates between ﬁxing qi’s and pu’s • when all pu’s ﬁxed, recompute qi’s by solving a least squares problem: • Fix matrix P as some matrix P, so that minimization problem: • or ﬁx Q similarly as: • Learning Rule: 86 where and
- 85. • Add Biases: • Add Input Sources: Implicit Feedback: pu in rui becomes (pu + + (…) )Add Temporal Aspect / time-varying parameters • Vary Conﬁdence Levels of Inputs Develop Further… 87 and pic: Lei Guo 2012 (Salakhutdinov & Mnih 2008; Koren 2010)
- 86. Develop Further… • Final Algoritm: 88 conﬁdence bias terms regularization (Paterek,A. 2007)
- 87. • Final Algorithm with Temporal dimensions: Develop Further… 89
- 88. • So what if we don’t have any content factors known? • Probabilistic Matrix Factorization to the rescue! • describe each user and each movie by a small set of attributes
- 89. Probabilistic Matrix Factorization • Imagine we have the following rating data: we could say that Roelof and Klas like Action movies, but don’t like Comedy’s, while its the opposite for Mo and Max Title Roelof Klas Mo Max The Avengers 5 1 1 4 Spiderman II 4 2 1 5 American Pie 3 5 4 1 Shrek 1 4 5 2
- 90. Probabilistic Matrix Factorization • This could be represented by the PMF model by using three dimensional vectors to describe each user and each movie. • example latent vectors: • AV: [0, 0.3] • SPII: [1, 0.3] • AP [1, 0.3] • SH [1, 0.3] • Roelof: [0, 3] • Klas: [8, 3] • Mo [10, 3] • Max [10, 3] • predict rating by dot product of user vector with the item vector • So predicting Klas’ rating for Spiderman II = 8*1 + 3*0.3 = • But descriptions of users and movies not known ahead of time. • PGM discovers such latent characteristics
- 91. <CODE TIME> ratings Probabilistic Matrix Factorization
- 92. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Content based Algorithms * •Collaborative Algorithms * •Classiﬁcation •Rating/Ranking * •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 93. Classiﬁcation • k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) • Decision Trees • Rule-Based • Bayesian • Artiﬁcial Neural Networks • Support Vector Machines
- 94. Classiﬁcation • k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)! • Decision Trees • Rule-Based • Bayesian • Artiﬁcial Neural Networks • Support Vector Machines
- 95. k-Nearest Neighbor s • non parametric lazy learning algorithm • data as feature space • simple and fast • k-nn classiﬁcation • k-nn regression: density estimation
- 96. kNN: Classiﬁcation • Classify • several Xi used to classify Y • compare (X1 p,X2 p) and (X1 q,Xq) by Squared Euclidean distance: d2 pq = (X1 p - x1 q)2 + (X2 p - X2q)2 • ﬁnd k-Nearest Neighbors
- 97. kNN: Classiﬁcation • input: content extracted emotional values of 561 movies. thanks: Johannes Östling :) ie: dimensions of movie “Hamlet”:
- 98. KNN <CODE>
- 99. k-Nearest Neighbors emotional dimension “Anger” vs “Love”
- 100. k-Nearest Neighbors Negative: afraid, confused, helpless', hurt, sad, angry, depressed Positive: good, interested, love, positive, strong aggregate of positive and negative emotions
- 101. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Content based Algorithms * •Collaborative Algorithms * •Classiﬁcation •Rating/Ranking * •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 102. Rating predictions: • Pos — Neg • Average • Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates • Lower bound of Wilson score conﬁdence interval for a Bernoulli parameter
- 103. Rating predictions: • Pos — Neg! • Average • Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates • Lower bound of Wilson score conﬁdence interval for a Bernoulli parameter
- 104. P — N • (Positive ratings) - (Negative ratings) • Problematic: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/deﬁne.php?term=movies)
- 105. Rating predictions: • Pos — Neg • Average! • Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates • Lower bound of Wilson score conﬁdence interval for a Bernoulli parameter
- 106. Average • (Positive ratings) / (Total ratings) • Problematic: (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/electronics/)
- 107. Rating predictions: • Pos — Neg • Average • Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates! • Lower bound of Wilson score conﬁdence interval for a Bernoulli parameter
- 108. Ratings • Top Ranking at IMDB (gives Bayesian estimate): • Weighted Rating (WR) = (v / (v+m)) × R + (m / (v+m)) × C! • Where: R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating) v = number of votes for the movie = (votes) m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 25000) C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 7.0)
- 109. Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates • : • weighted average on a per-item basis: (source(s): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/ratings)
- 110. Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates @ IMDB Bayesian Weights for m = 1250 0" 0,1" 0,2" 0,3" 0,4" 0,5" 0,6" 0,7" 0,8" 0,9" 1" 0" 250" 500" 750" 1000" 1250" 2000" 3000" 4000" 5000" speciﬁc" global" • speciﬁc part for individual items • global part is constant over all items • can be precalculated
- 111. m=1250
- 112. Rating predictions: • Pos — Neg • Average • Bayesian (Weighted) Estimates • Lower bound of Wilson score conﬁdence interval for a Bernoulli parameter
- 113. Wilson Score interval • 1927 by Edwin B. Wilson • Given the ratings I have, there is a 95% chance that the "real" fraction of positive ratings is at least what?
- 114. Wilson Score interval • used by Reddit for comments ranking • “rank the best comments highest regardless of their submission time” • algorithm introduced to Reddit by Randall Munroe (the author of xkcd). • treats the vote count as a statistical sampling of a hypothetical full vote by everyone, much as in an opinion poll.
- 115. Wilson Score interval • Endpoints for Wilson Score interval: • Reddit’s comment Ranking function (phat+z*z/(2*n) - z*sqrt((phat*(1-phat) + z*z/(4*n))/n)) /(1+z*z/n)
- 116. CODE
- 117. CODE
- 118. Bernoulli anyone? *as the trial (N) = 2 (2 throws of dice) its actually not a real Bernoulli distribution
- 119. What’s next? GRAPHS
- 120. Outline •Recommender Systems •Algorithms* •Graphs (* math magicians better pay attention here)
- 121. Graph Based Approaches • Whats a Graph?! • Why Graphs? • Who uses Graphs? • Talking with Graphs • Graph example: Recommendations • Graph example: Data Analysis
- 122. What’s a Graph? 124 Movie has_genre Genre features_actor Actor Director directed_by likes User watches rates Userlikes_user likes_user friends follows comments_movie Comment likes_com m ent likes_actor … has_X etcetera locations! time! moods! keywords! … Vertices (Nodes) Edges (Relations)
- 123. Graph Based Approaches • Whats a Graph? • Why Graphs?! • Who uses Graphs? • Talking with Graphs • Graph example: Recommendations • Graph example: Data Analysis
- 124. Why Graphs? • more complex (social networks…) • more connected (wikis, pingbacks, rdf, collaborative tagging) • more semi-structured (wikis, rss) • more decentralized: democratization of content production (blogs, twitter*, social media*) and just: MORE Its the nature of todays Data, which is getting:
- 125. Data Trend “Every 2 days we create as much information as we did up to 2003” — Eric Schmidt, Google Why Graphs?
- 126. Graphs vs Relational 128 relational graph graph (pic by Michael Hunger, neo4j) Why Graphs? Its Fast! Matrix based Calculations: Exponential run-time (items x users x factori x …)
- 127. Graphs vs Relational 129 relational graph graph (pic by Michael Hunger, neo4j) Why Graphs? Its Fast! Graph based Calculations: Linear/Constant run-time (item of interest x relations)
- 128. Its White-Board Friendly ! (pic by Michael Hunger, neo4j) Why Graphs?
- 129. (pic by Michael Hunger, neo4j) Its White-Board Friendly ! Why Graphs?
- 130. (pic by Michael Hunger, neo4j) Its White-Board Friendly ! Why Graphs?
- 131. Graph Based Approaches • Whats a Graph? • Why Graphs? • Who uses Graphs?! • Talking with Graphs • Graph example: Recommendations • Graph example: Data Analysis
- 132. Who uses Graphs? • Facebook: Open Graph (https:// developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph) • Google: Knowledge Graph (http:// www.google.com/insidesearch/features/search/ knowledge.html) • Twitter: FlockDB (https://github.com/twitter/ﬂockdb) • Mozilla: Pancake (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Pancake) • (…)
- 133. 135 (pic by Michael Hunger, neo4j)
- 134. Graph Based Approaches • Whats a Graph? • Why Graphs? • Who uses Graphs? • Talking with Graphs! • Graph example: Recommendations • Graph example: Data Analysis
- 135. Talking with Graphs • Graphs can be queried! • no unions for comparison, but traversals! • many different graph traversal patterns (xkcd)
- 136. graph traversal patterns • traversals can be seen as a diffusion proces over a graph! • “Energy” moves over a graph and spreads out through the network! • energy: (Ghahramani 2012)
- 137. Energy Diffusion (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011)
- 138. Energy Diffusion (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011) energy = 4
- 139. Energy Diffusion (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011) energy = 3
- 140. Energy Diffusion (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011) energy = 2
- 141. Energy Diffusion (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011) energy = 1
- 142. Graph Based Approaches • Whats a Graph? • Why Graphs? • Who uses Graphs? • Talking with Graphs • Graph example: Recommendations! • Graph example: Data Analysis
- 143. Diffusion Example: Recommendations • Energy diffusion is an easy algorithms for making recommendations! • different paths make different recommendations! • different paths for different problems can be solved on same graph/domain! • recommendation = “jumps” through the data
- 144. Friend Recommendation • Who are my friends’ friends that are not me or my friends (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011)
- 145. Friend Recommendation • Who are my friends’ friends • Who are my friends’ friends that are not me or my friends G.V(‘me’).outE[knows].inV.outE.inV G.V(‘me’).outE[knows].inV.aggregate(x).outE. inV{!x.contains(it)}
- 146. Product Recommendation • Who likes what I like —> of these things, what do they like which I dont’ already like (pic by Marko A. Rodriguez, 2011)
- 147. Product Recommendation • Who likes what I like • Who likes what I like —> of these things, what do they like which I dont’ already like • Who likes what I like —> of these things, what do they like which I dont’ already like G.V(‘me’).outE[likes].inV.inE[likes].outV G.V(‘me’).outE[likes].inV.aggregate(x).inE[likes]. outV.outE[like].inV{!x.contains(it)} G.V(‘me’).outE[likes].inV.inE[likes].outV.outE[like].inV
- 148. Recommendations at with FoorSee
- 149. Graph Based Approaches • Whats a Graph? • Why Graphs? • Who uses Graphs? • Talking with Graphs • Graph example: Recommendations • Graph example: Data Analysis
- 150. 154 Pulp Fiction
- 151. Graphs: Conclusion • Fast! • Scalable! • Diversiﬁcation! • No Cold Start! • Sparsity/Density not applicable
- 152. Graphs: Conclusion • NaturalVisualizable! • Feedback / Understandable! • Connectable to the “web” / semantic web! • Social Network Analysis! • Real Time Updates / Recommendations !
- 153. WARNING Graphs are Addictive!
- 154. Les Miserables
- 155. Facebook Network
- 156. References • J. Dietmar, G. Friedrich and M. Zanker (2011) “Recommender Systems”, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Barcelona • Z. Ghahramani (2012) “Graph-based Semi-supervised Learning”, MLSS, La Palma • D. Goldbergs, D. Nichols, B.M. Oki and D. Terry (1992) “Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry”, Communications of the ACM 35 (12) • M. Hunger (2013) “Data Modeling with Neo4j”, http:// www.slideshare.net/neo4j/data-modeling-with-neo4j-25767444 • S. Funk (2006) “Netflix Update: Try This at Home”, sifter.org/~simon/ journal/20061211.html 159
- 157. References • Y. Koren (2008) “Factorization meets the Neighborhood: A Multifaceted Collaborative Filtering Model”, SIGKDD, http:// public.research.att.com/~volinsky/netflix/kdd08koren.pdf • Y. Koren & C. Bell, (2007) “Scalable Collaborative Filtering with Jointly Derived Neighborhood Interpolation Weights” • Y, Koren (2010) “Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics” • A. Ng. (2013) Machine Learning, ml-004 @ Coursera • A. Paterek (2007) “Improving Regularized Singular Value Decomposition for Collaborative Filtering”, KDD 160
- 158. References • P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom and J. Riedl (1994), “GroupLens: An Open Architecture for Collaborative Filtering of Netnews”, Proceedings of ACM • B.R. Sarwar et al. (2000) “Application of Dimensionality Reduction in Recommender System—A case Study”, WebKDD • B. Saewar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, J, Riedl (2001) “Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms” • R. Salakhutdinov & A. Mnih (2008) “Probabilistic Matrix Factorization” • xkcd.com 161
- 159. Take Away Points • Focus on the best Question, not just the Answer…! • Best Match (most similar) vs Most Popular! • Personalized vs Global Factors! • Less is More ?! • What is relevant?
- 160. Thanks for listening! 163 (xkcd)
- 161. Say What? • So what other stuﬀ do we do at Vionlabs? • Some examples of data extraction which is fed into our BAG (Big Ass Grap)…
- 162. Computer Vision
- 163. NLTK 167

Full NameComment goes here.Roelof Pieters, Head Research & Development (R&D) and Hacker-in-Residence (HIR) at VionLabs re: sqrt(1^2+2^2+(-1)^2) = 6 ? it is, late at night ;OBeat Toedtli, Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter at Fernfachhochschule Schweiz sqrt(1^2+2^2+(-1)^2) = 6 ?! ;-) (slide 49)nice slides!

johnymontana1 week agoTanya Mulkidzhanova, Entertainment Manager at Kyivstar 3 months agomastropos4 months agoDenis Parra-Santander, Assistant Professor at PUC Chile 5 months agoMichele Trevisiol, Ph.D. Student at Yahoo! Research Barcelona and Universitat Pompeu Fabra 5 months ago