Alexandros Karatzoglou, profile picture
Uploaded byAlexandros Karatzoglou
PDF, PPTX34,786 views

Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems - ACM RecSys 2013 tutorial

This document provides an overview of learning to rank methodologies for recommender systems, highlighting various ranking measures, approaches, and their respective challenges. It discusses different strategies, such as pointwise, pairwise, and listwise models, and shares insights on performance improvements achievable through learning to rank techniques. The document also addresses common issues in ranking, including inconsistencies and the limitations of factor models.

Technology◦Health & Medicine◦Sports◦
Related topics:
Information Retrieval•
In this document
Powered by AI

Overview of the presenters and their affiliations in the context of recommender systems.

Discussion of various ranking methods and contributions in recommendation systems optimization.

Introduction to ranking metrics like AUC, AP, and DCG for evaluating recommendation quality.

Different approaches to learning to rank: pointwise, pairwise, and listwise strategies described.

Various models for ranking and collaborative filtering including features of algorithms like CoFiRank.

Overview of optimizing ranking metrics such as RR and MRR, comparing different approaches.

Emerging techniques like RBMs and contextual bandits in ranking and recommendation systems.

Current trends in recommender system research including bandits, ranking aggregation, and dependencies.

Embed presentation

Download as PDF, PPTX
1 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems Alexandros Karatzogloua , Linas Baltrunasa, Yue Shib aTelefonica Research, Spain bDelft University of Technology, Netherlands
2 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Who are we? Alexandros, Linas Yue •  Machine Learning •  Recommender Systems •  Data Mining, Social Networks •  Multimedia Indexing & Analysis •  HCI •  System & Networking •  We are looking for interns! •  Multimedia •  Recommender Systems •  Data Mining, Social Networks •  System & Networking
3 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations in Telefonica
4 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations in Telefonica
5 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations in Telefonica
6 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Previous Contributions in Ranking CIKM 2013: GAPfm: Optimal Top-N Recommendations for Graded Relevance Domains RecSys 2013: xCLiMF: Optimizing Expected Reciprocal Rank for Data with Multiple Levels of Relevance RecSys 2012: CLiMF: Learning to Maximize Reciprocal Rank with Collaborative Less-is-More Filtering * Best Paper Award SIGIR 2012: TFMAP: Optimizing MAP for Top-N Context-aware Recommendation Machine Learning Journal, 2008: Improving Maximum Margin Matrix Factorization * Best Machine Learning Paper Award at ECML PKDD 2008 RecSys 2010: List-wise Learning to Rank with Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Filtering NIPS 2007: CoFiRank - Maximum Margin Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Ranking
7 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations are ranked lists
8 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 INTRO TO RANKING •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
9 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Popular Ranking Methods •  In order to generate the ranked item list, we need some relative utility score for each item •  Popularity is the obvious baseline •  Score could depend on the user (personalized) •  Score could also depend on the other items in the list (list-wise) •  One popular way to rank the items in RS is to sort the items according to the rating prediction •  Works for the domains with ratings •  Wastes the modeling power for the irrelevant items
10 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Model + + ++ + + + + + fij = hUi, Vji
11 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Graphical Notation Relevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Relevant   Relevant  
12 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ranking using latent representation •  If user = [-100, -100] •  2d latent factor •  We get the corresponding ranking
13 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Matrix Factorization (for ranking) •  Randomly initialize item vectors •  Randomly initialize user vectors •  While not converged •  Compute rating prediction error •  Update user factors •  Update item factors •  Lets say user is [-100, -100] •  Compute the square error •  (5-<[-100, -100], [0.180, 0.19]>)2=1764 •  Update the user and item to the direction where the error is reduced (according to the gradient of the loss) 8 items with ratings and random factors
14 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Square Loss
15 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Square Loss User: [3, 1], RMSE=6.7
16 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning  to  Rank  for  Top-­‐k  RecSys   • Usually  we  care  to  make  accurate  ranking  and  not  ra>ng  predic>on   •  Square  loss  op>mizes  to  accurately  predict  1s  and  5s.   • RS  should  get  the  top  items  right  -­‐>  Ranking  problem   • Why  not  to  learn  how  to  rank  directly?   •  Learning  to  Rank  methods  provide  up  to  30%  performance   improvements  in  off-­‐line  evalua>ons   •  It  is  possible,  but  a  more  complex  task  
17 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Example: average precision (AP) AP = |S| X k=1 P(k) |S| •  AP: we compute the precision at each relevant position and average them P@1+ P@2 + P@4 3 = 1/1+ 2 / 2 +3/ 4 3 = 0.92
18 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Why is hard? Non Smoothness Example: AP u:[-20,-20] u:[20,20]
19 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 AP vs RMSE
20 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 The Non-smoothness of Average Precision APm = 1 PN i=1 ymi NX i=1 ymi rmi NX j=1 ymjI(rmj  rmi) AP = |S| X k=1 P(k) |S| ymi rmi I(·) is 1 if item i is relevant for user m and 0 otherwise indicator function (1 if it is true, 0 otherwise) Rank of item i for user m
21 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 How can we get a smooth-AP? • We  replace  non  smooth  places  of  MAP  with  smooth  approxima>on   g(x) = 1/(1 + e x ) 1 rmi ⇡ g(fmi) = g(hUm, Vii)
22 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 How can we get a smooth-MAP? • We  replace  non  smooth  places  of  MAP  with  smooth  approxima>on   g(x) = 1/(1 + e x ) I(rmj  rmi) ⇡ g(fmj fmi) = g(hUm, Vj Vii)
23 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 u:[-20,-20] u:[20,20] Smooth version of MAP
24 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Not always the case: only sometimes approximation is very good…
25 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ranking Inconsistencies •  Achieving a perfect ranking for all users is not possible •  Two Sources of Inconsistencies: •  1) Factor Models (all models) have limited expressive power and cannot learn the perfect ranking for all users •  2) Ranking functions approximations are inconsistent e.g. A >B & B>C but C > A
26 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Summary on Ranking 101
27 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 RANKING METRICS •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
28 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) AUC := 1 |S+||S | S+ X i SX j I(Ri < Rj)
29 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Reciprocal Rank (RR) RR := 1 Ri
30 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Average Precision (AP) AP = |S| X k=1 P(k) |S|
31 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 AP vs RR
32 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 DCG = X i 2score(i) 1 log2(i + 2) Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG)
33 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 AP AUC RR Square loss
34 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Top-k Ranking •  Focus on the very top of the recommendation list since users pay attention only to the first k items •  Top heavy ranking measures put much more emphasis at the top of the list e.g. MRR, MAP, NDCG. •  Drop in measure non-linear with the position in the list •  AUC gives the same emphasis to the top as to the bottom of the list •  drop in measure linear to the position in the list
35 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 LEARNING TO RANK FOR RECSYS •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
36 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning to Rank for IR and ML •  Query-document (Q-D) retrieval: Given a query, rank documents. (features of a Q-D pair, relevance label) Learn a ranking function Predict relevances of new Q-D pairs RankSVM LambdaRank RankNet RankBoost AdaRank ListNet SVM-MAP SoftRank … Analogy: Query-doc --- User-item
37 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 •  The Point-wise Approach •  Reduce Ranking to Regression, Classification, or Ordinal Regression problem •  The Pairwise Approach •  Reduce Ranking to pair-wise classification •  List-wise Approach •  Direct optimization of IR measures, List-wise loss minimization Learning to Rank in CF f(user, item) ! R f(user, item1, item2) ! R f(user, item1, . . . , itemn) ! R
38 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Overview Classification by What to Model Pointwise Pairwise Listwise Matrix factorization [Koren 2009] BPR [Rendle 2009] CofiRank [Weimer 2007] SVD++ [Koren 2008] EigenRank [Liu 2008] ListRank [Shi 2010] OrdRec [Koren 2011] pLPA [Liu 2009] WLT [Volkovs 2012] Factorization machines [Rendle 2012] CR [Balakrishnan 2012] TFMAP [Shi 2012a] (All rating prediction methods) CLiMF [Shi 2012b] GAPfm [Shi 2013a] xCLiMF [Shi 2013b]
39 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Overview Classification by How to Model Proxy of rankings Structured estimation Non-smooth optimization Smoothing ranking measures (All the rating prediction methods) CofiRank [Weimer 2007] WLT [Volkovs 2012] BPR [Rendle 2009] EigenRank [Liu 2008] TFMAP [Shi 2012a] pLPA [Liu 2009] CLiMF [Shi 2012b] ListRank [Shi 2010] GAPfm [Shi 2013a] CR [Balakrishnan 2012] xCLiMF [Shi 2013b]
40 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Pointwise Standard Matrix Factorization [Koren 2009] 12355111u4 33334233u3 41155334u2 25532111u1 i8i7i6i5i4i3i2i1 12355111u4 33334233u3 41155334u2 25532111u1 i8i7i6i5i4i3i2i1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? U (4×D) V (D×8) ×~ Learn latent factors of users (U) and latent factors of items (V), so that the product of U and V can fit the known data. The ratings of unseen items predicted by corresponding inner products Each user represented by a D-dim vector Each item represented by a D-dim vector
41 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Pointwise 1 4 24 3 3 5 4 3 fij = hUi, Vji l(fij, yij) = 1 2 (fij yij)2
42 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ordrec [Koren 2011] Ratings are not numeric, but ordinal. Ordinal modeling by learning the thresholds 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Item with rating 4 should be more similar to that with rating 5 Item with rating 4 should be less similar to that with rating 1
43 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 OrdRec [Koren 2011] Pointwise, proxy 1 2 3 4 5 t1 t2 t3 t4 log( s 1 s ) = ts hUi, Mji P( s) = s
44 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 OrdRec [Koren 2011] 1 2 3 4 5 Parameterize the threshold into: User factor, item factor and previous threshold Full distribution estimation
45 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 BPR [Rendle 2009] Pairwise, smoothing Main idea: learn by comparing items that the user likes with items that he does not. + - > Optimize the AUC, use a smooth version for Optimization purposes When dealing with implicit data sample the unseen data as negative
46 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Representation of pairwise preference data Transformers (T) ? Inception (I) ? Scent of a woman (S) 1 Forrest Gump (F) 1 Zombieland (Z) ? What Alice watched What Alice’s pairwise preferences (Row to Column) T I S F Z T ? - - ? I ? - - ? S + + ? + F + + ? + Z ? ? - - BPR [Rendle 2009] Pairwise, smoothing
47 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 EigenRank [Liu 2008] Pairwise, proxy Ranking-based similarity instead of rating based similarity i1 i2 i3 u1 2 3 4 u2 4 2 5 User-user similarity based on Kendall Rank Correlation Neighbour selection for a user and item preference estimation Random walk with restart over pairwise item preference graph
48 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Listwise Learn to model individual ratings Learn to model ranked list, or to model evaluation metrics that capture the quality of ranked list Listwise perspective CofiRank ListRank CLiMF TFMAP GAPfm xCLiMF f(user, item) f(user, item) f(user, item) f(user,item1,item2,item3)
49 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Based on Structured estimation i.e. Machine Learning methods for complex output domains (graphs, sequences, etc.) •  Cast the Ranking problem as a Structured estimation problem •  i.e. Learn a function that is maximized for the best possible ranking with respect to a ranking measure e.g. NDCG
50 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Step 1: •  Instead of maximizing •  Minimize DCG@k(⇡, y) = kX i=1 (2yi 1) log(⇡i + 1) (⇡, y) := 1 NDCG(⇡, y)
51 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Step 2: •  Use the •  Create a linear mapping •  that is maximized for •  denote by a decreasing nonnegative sequence ha, bi  hsort(a), sort(b)i 8a, b 2 Rn (⇡, f) := hc, f⇡i ⇡ = argsort(f)
52 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Step 3: •  Find convex upper on non-convex optimization problems: Let Maximization by solving a Linear Assignment Problem to get an estimate for the worst case loss (maximum margin) l(f, y) := max ⇡ h (⇡, y) + hc, f⇡ fi i
53 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] 1.6 2.6 2.9 1.9f l(f, y) := max ⇡ h (⇡, y) + hc, f⇡ fi i c := (i + 1) 0.5 := [1, 0.7 ,0.57 ,0.5] ⇡ := [3, 2 ,4 ,1] ⇡ 1 := [4, 2 ,1 ,3] @f l(f, y) = [c c⇡ 1 ] := [-0.5, 0.0 ,0.42 ,0.1] 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.6f⇡
54 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007]
55 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CLiMF [Shi 2012b] Listwise, Smoothing Ranking Metrics •  Why optimize mean reciprocal rank (MRR)? •  Focus at the very top of the list •  Try to get at least one interesting item at the top of the list •  How to optimize MRR? •  Find a smooth version of MRR •  Find a lower bound of the smoothed MRR
56 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 The Non-smoothness of Reciprocal Rank •  Reciprocal Rank (RR): The inverse of the rank of the first relevant item in a given list. RRi = NX j=1 Yij Rij NY k=1 (1 YikI(Rik < Rij)) RRi Rank-based component Rank-based component I(Rik < Rij) ⇡ g(fik fij) 1 Rij ⇡ g(fij)
57 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Reciprocal Rank
58 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Lower Bound RRi ⇡ NX j=1 Yijg(fij) NY k=1 1 Yikg(fik fij) L(Ui, V ) = NX j=1 Yij ⇥ ln g(fij) + NX k=1 ln 1 Yikg(fik fij) ⇤ O(n+2 ) Jensen’s inequality Concavity of log function
59 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 What’s the Key? •  CLiMF reciprocal rank loss essentially pushes relevant items apart •  In the process at least one items ends up high-up in the list
60 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Conventional loss
61 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CLiMF MRR-loss
62 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Optimizing RR vs. AUC Opt. RR Opt. AUC
63 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Listwise xCLiMF [Shi 2013b] – Generalization to Ratings •  Expected reciprocal rank (ERR) [Chapelle 2009] •  A generalization of RR to graded relevance data •  Cascade nature compared to NDCG 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 NDCG ERR Equal contribution independent of the items ranked above Different contributions relative to the items ranked above = <
64 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 xCLiMF vs. CLiMF 0.000   0.100   0.200   0.300   0.400   3   4   MRR   Relevance  threshold   CLiMF   xCLiMF   0.000   0.050   0.100   0.150   0.200   0.250   0.300   3   4   ERR   Relevance  threshold   CLiMF   xCLiMF   Results from Tuenti video watching dataset xCLiMF shows its advantage over CLiMF when applied to graded relevance data
65 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Listwise TFMAP [Shi 2012a] – Generalization to Context Context-aware Recommendation
66 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Problem Setting •  Given: Users’ implicit feedback on items under different contexts •  Target: To recommend a list of items to each user under any given context, as accurate as possible Users Contexts Items Top-N recommendation Context-aware Optimal in terms of MAP
67 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Main Concept of TFMAP •  CP tensor factorization U,V,C are latent factors (parameters to be learned) U, V, C are learned from optimizing the smoothed MAP
68 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 TRENDS AND CHALLENGES •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
69 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Deep Learning Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) •  A (generative stochastic) Neural Network •  Learns a probability distribution over its inputs •  Used in dimensionality reduction, CF, topic modeling, feature learning •  Essential components of Deep Learning methods (DBN's, DBM's)
70 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 RBMs for CF [Salakhutdinov 2007] ? ? ? ? ? 1 2 3 4 5 h v W Learning hidden variables for each user Learning weight matrix shared by all the users Known data
71 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Bandits •  In many domains items are constantly new (e.g. news recommendation, computational advertisement) •  Contextual Bandits are on-line learning algorithms that work by “exploring” the user preference space and “exploiting” the resulting models in serving recommendations •  There has been little work in finding optimal strategies in terms of the ranking of items
72 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ranking aggregation •  Ensemble methods and Hybrid methods are commonly used in industry •  Aggregating the resulting rankings provided by different recommendations methods is not trivial •  Currently an open research field
73 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Modelling Dependencies in Rankings •  Most ranking methods are oblivious to the other items in the recommended ranked list. •  For example Diversity is not taken into account in most ranking methods •  Basket recommendation or next item recommendation cannot be handled by most current methods
74 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Meet Okapi •  A new Collaborative Ranking framework that runs on apache Giraph •  Written in Java •  accessible for a large(r) audience •  good for unit testing •  Distributed, "large scale ready" computing •  Reproducibility •  has a distributed evaluation framework •  http://baltrunas.info/research-menu/okapi
75 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Thank you ! Telefonica Research is looking for interns! Contact: alexk@tid.es or linas@tid.es
76 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 References q  Balakrishnan, S., & Chopra, S. (2012, February). Collaborative ranking. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 143-152). ACM. q  Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E., Lazier, A., Deeds, M., Hamilton, N., & Hullender, G. (2005, August). Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning (pp. 89-96). ACM. q  Cao, Z., Qin, T., Liu, T. Y., Tsai, M. F., & Li, H. (2007, June). Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning (pp. 129-136). ACM. q  Chapelle, O., Metlzer, D., Zhang, Y., & Grinspan, P. (2009, November). Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 621-630). ACM. q  Joachims, T. (2002, July). Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 133-142). ACM. q  Koren, Y. (2008, August). Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 426-434). ACM. q  Koren, Y., Bell, R., & Volinsky, C. (2009). Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer, 42(8), 30-37. q  Koren, Y., & Sill, J. (2011, October). OrdRec: an ordinal model for predicting personalized item rating distributions. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 117-124). ACM. q  Liu, N. N., & Yang, Q. (2008, July). Eigenrank: a ranking-oriented approach to collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 83-90). ACM.
77 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 q  Liu, N. N., Zhao, M., & Yang, Q. (2009, November). Probabilistic latent preference analysis for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 759-766). ACM. q  Quoc, C., & Le, V. (2007). Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 19, 193-200. q  Rendle, S., Freudenthaler, C., Gantner, Z., & Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2009, June). BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 452-461). AUAI Press. q  Rendle, S. (2012). Factorization machines with libFM. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 3(3), 57. q  Salakhutdinov, R., Mnih, A., & Hinton, G. (2007, June). Restricted Boltzmann machines for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning (pp. 791-798). ACM. q  Shi, Y., Larson, M., & Hanjalic, A. (2010, September). List-wise learning to rank with matrix factorization for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 269-272). ACM. q  Shi, Y., Karatzoglou, A., Baltrunas, L., Larson, M., Hanjalic, A., & Oliver, N. (2012a, August). TFMAP: Optimizing MAP for top-n context-aware recommendation. In Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 155-164). ACM. q  Shi, Y., Karatzoglou, A., Baltrunas, L., Larson, M., Oliver, N., & Hanjalic, A. (2012b, September). CLiMF: learning to maximize reciprocal rank with collaborative less-is-more filtering. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 139-146). ACM. q  Taylor, M., Guiver, J., Robertson, S., & Minka, T. (2008, February). Softrank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining (pp. 77-86). ACM.
78 RecSys ’13, Hong Kong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 q  Volkovs, M., & Zemel, R. S. (2012). Collaborative ranking with 17 parameters. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 2303-2311). q  Weimer, M., Karatzoglou, A., Le, Q. V., & Smola, A. J. (2007). Cofi rank-maximum margin matrix factorization for collaborative ranking. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1593-1600). q  Xu, J., & Li, H. (2007, July). Adarank: a boosting algorithm for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 391-398). ACM. q  Yue, Y., Finley, T., Radlinski, F., & Joachims, T. (2007, July). A support vector method for optimizing average precision. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 271-278). ACM.

More Related Content

PPTX
GRU4Rec v2 - Recurrent Neural Networks with Top-k Gains for Session-based Rec...
byBalázs Hidasi
 
PDF
Past, Present & Future of Recommender Systems: An Industry Perspective
byJustin Basilico
 
PDF
Interactive Recommender Systems with Netflix and Spotify
byChris Johnson
 
PDF
Rishabh Mehrotra - Recommendations in a Marketplace: Personalizing Explainabl...
byMLconf
 
PPTX
Personalized Page Generation for Browsing Recommendations
byJustin Basilico
 
PDF
Making Netflix Machine Learning Algorithms Reliable
byJustin Basilico
 
PPTX
Lessons Learned from Building Machine Learning Software at Netflix
byJustin Basilico
 
PDF
Personalized Playlists at Spotify
byRohan Agrawal
 
GRU4Rec v2 - Recurrent Neural Networks with Top-k Gains for Session-based Rec...
byBalázs Hidasi
 
Past, Present & Future of Recommender Systems: An Industry Perspective
byJustin Basilico
 
Interactive Recommender Systems with Netflix and Spotify
byChris Johnson
 
Rishabh Mehrotra - Recommendations in a Marketplace: Personalizing Explainabl...
byMLconf
 
Personalized Page Generation for Browsing Recommendations
byJustin Basilico
 
Making Netflix Machine Learning Algorithms Reliable
byJustin Basilico
 
Lessons Learned from Building Machine Learning Software at Netflix
byJustin Basilico
 
Personalized Playlists at Spotify
byRohan Agrawal
 

What's hot

PPT
Diversity and novelty for recommendation system
byZhenv5
 
PDF
Incorporating Diversity in a Learning to Rank Recommender System
byJacek Wasilewski
 
PDF
Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Recommender Systems
byEnrico Palumbo
 
PDF
Tutorial on Bias in Rec Sys @ UMAP2020
byMirko Marras
 
PDF
Keynote: Bias in Search and Recommender Systems
byCatalyst
 
PDF
Bpr bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback
byPark JunPyo
 
PDF
Recent advances in deep recommender systems
byNAVER Engineering
 
PDF
Hands on Explainable Recommender Systems with Knowledge Graphs @ RecSys22
byGiacomoBalloccu
 
PPTX
Recommendation Systems
byRobin Reni
 
PDF
Déjà Vu: The Importance of Time and Causality in Recommender Systems
byJustin Basilico
 
PPTX
Recommender system
byNilotpal Pramanik
 
PDF
Causality without headaches
byBenoît Rostykus
 
PDF
Overview of recommender system
byStanley Wang
 
PDF
Recommender Systems
byCarlos Castillo (ChaTo)
 
PDF
Vector databases and neural search
byDmitry Kan
 
PDF
Deep Learning Recommender Systems
byCristian Javier Martinez
 
PPTX
Content based filtering
byBendito Freitas Ribeiro
 
PPTX
Recommender Systems
byGirish Khanzode
 
PPTX
Recommender systems: Content-based and collaborative filtering
byViet-Trung TRAN
 
PPTX
Movie recommendation system using collaborative filtering system
byMauryasuraj98
 
Diversity and novelty for recommendation system
byZhenv5
 
Incorporating Diversity in a Learning to Rank Recommender System
byJacek Wasilewski
 
Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Recommender Systems
byEnrico Palumbo
 
Tutorial on Bias in Rec Sys @ UMAP2020
byMirko Marras
 
Keynote: Bias in Search and Recommender Systems
byCatalyst
 
Bpr bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback
byPark JunPyo
 
Recent advances in deep recommender systems
byNAVER Engineering
 
Hands on Explainable Recommender Systems with Knowledge Graphs @ RecSys22
byGiacomoBalloccu
 
Recommendation Systems
byRobin Reni
 
Déjà Vu: The Importance of Time and Causality in Recommender Systems
byJustin Basilico
 
Recommender system
byNilotpal Pramanik
 
Causality without headaches
byBenoît Rostykus
 
Overview of recommender system
byStanley Wang
 
Recommender Systems
byCarlos Castillo (ChaTo)
 
Vector databases and neural search
byDmitry Kan
 
Deep Learning Recommender Systems
byCristian Javier Martinez
 
Content based filtering
byBendito Freitas Ribeiro
 
Recommender Systems
byGirish Khanzode
 
Recommender systems: Content-based and collaborative filtering
byViet-Trung TRAN
 
Movie recommendation system using collaborative filtering system
byMauryasuraj98
 

Viewers also liked

PPTX
Learn to Rank search results
byGanesh Venkataraman
 
PDF
Recommender Systems (Machine Learning Summer School 2014 @ CMU)
byXavier Amatriain
 
PDF
Machine Learning for Recommender Systems MLSS 2015 Sydney
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
PDF
Learning to Rank - From pairwise approach to listwise
byHasan H Topcu
 
PDF
Deep Learning for Recommender Systems - Budapest RecSys Meetup
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
PDF
Learning to Rank: An Introduction to LambdaMART
byJulian Qian
 
PDF
Data analysis using spss
byMuhammad Ibrahim
 
PDF
Schedule Review
byChris Carson
 
PPTX
Usability Conversion Optimization for the Eye
byAngie Schottmuller
 
PDF
A Planner's Playbook - Everything I learned about planning at Miami Ad School...
bySytse Kooistra
 
PPT
Quality control circle presentation
byGanesh Murugan
 
PPTX
Gene transfer technologies
byManoj Kumar Tekuri
 
PPTX
Space frames
byBnv Aditya
 
PPTX
Introduction to strategic management
byCentre for Social Initiative and Management
 
PDF
Consumer Trends in 2016: 36 Expert Perspectives - Canvas8
byCanvas8
 
PPTX
Culture of Malaysia - CCAP
bySoon-Aik Chiew
 
PDF
La casbah d'Alger
byMebarka Fekih
 
PPTX
Learning to Rank Personalized Search Results in Professional Networks
byViet Ha-Thuc
 
ZIP
UXSpeakeasy - How To Get A Great UX Job
byPatrick Neeman
 
PDF
Surviving Google: SEO in 2020
byPeter "Dr. Pete" Meyers
 
Learn to Rank search results
byGanesh Venkataraman
 
Recommender Systems (Machine Learning Summer School 2014 @ CMU)
byXavier Amatriain
 
Machine Learning for Recommender Systems MLSS 2015 Sydney
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
Learning to Rank - From pairwise approach to listwise
byHasan H Topcu
 
Deep Learning for Recommender Systems - Budapest RecSys Meetup
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
Learning to Rank: An Introduction to LambdaMART
byJulian Qian
 
Data analysis using spss
byMuhammad Ibrahim
 
Schedule Review
byChris Carson
 
Usability Conversion Optimization for the Eye
byAngie Schottmuller
 
A Planner's Playbook - Everything I learned about planning at Miami Ad School...
bySytse Kooistra
 
Quality control circle presentation
byGanesh Murugan
 
Gene transfer technologies
byManoj Kumar Tekuri
 
Space frames
byBnv Aditya
 
Introduction to strategic management
byCentre for Social Initiative and Management
 
Consumer Trends in 2016: 36 Expert Perspectives - Canvas8
byCanvas8
 
Culture of Malaysia - CCAP
bySoon-Aik Chiew
 
La casbah d'Alger
byMebarka Fekih
 
Learning to Rank Personalized Search Results in Professional Networks
byViet Ha-Thuc
 
UXSpeakeasy - How To Get A Great UX Job
byPatrick Neeman
 
Surviving Google: SEO in 2020
byPeter "Dr. Pete" Meyers
 

Similar to Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems - ACM RecSys 2013 tutorial

PDF
Recsys 2014 Tutorial - The Recommender Problem Revisited
byXavier Amatriain
 
PDF
HT2014 Tutorial: Evaluating Recommender Systems - Ensuring Replicability of E...
byAlejandro Bellogin
 
PDF
GTC 2021: Counterfactual Learning to Rank in E-commerce
byGrubhubTech
 
PPTX
Udacity webinar on Recommendation Systems
byAxel de Romblay
 
PDF
Ranking and Diversity in Recommendations - RecSys Stammtisch at SoundCloud, B...
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
PDF
Best Practices in Recommender System Challenges
byAlan Said
 
PDF
SFScon18 - Ludovik Coba - rrecsys: an R library for prototyping and assessing...
bySouth Tyrol Free Software Conference
 
PDF
Learning To Rank data2day 2017
byStefan Kühn
 
PDF
Training deep auto encoders for collaborative filtering
byMarlesson Santana
 
PDF
RecSys 2020 - On Target Item Sampling in Offline Recommender System Evaluation
byPablo Castells
 
PDF
Top-N Recommendations from Implicit Feedback leveraging Linked Open Data
byVito Ostuni
 
PDF
CLiMF: Collaborative Less-is-More Filtering
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
PDF
Continuous Evaluation of Collaborative Recommender Systems in Data Stream Man...
byDr. Cornelius Ludmann
 
PPT
Part 1
bybutest
 
PDF
Gaussian Ranking by Matrix Factorization, ACM RecSys Conference 2015
byHarald Steck
 
PPTX
Deep Dive to Learning to Rank for Graph Search.pptx
byanirudhk46
 
PDF
Introduction to behavior based recommendation system
byKimikazu Kato
 
PPTX
[UPDATE] Udacity webinar on Recommendation Systems
byAxel de Romblay
 
PDF
Recsys matrix-factorizations
byDmitriy Selivanov
 
PDF
Highlights from the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2014)
byDavid Zibriczky
 
Recsys 2014 Tutorial - The Recommender Problem Revisited
byXavier Amatriain
 
HT2014 Tutorial: Evaluating Recommender Systems - Ensuring Replicability of E...
byAlejandro Bellogin
 
GTC 2021: Counterfactual Learning to Rank in E-commerce
byGrubhubTech
 
Udacity webinar on Recommendation Systems
byAxel de Romblay
 
Ranking and Diversity in Recommendations - RecSys Stammtisch at SoundCloud, B...
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
Best Practices in Recommender System Challenges
byAlan Said
 
SFScon18 - Ludovik Coba - rrecsys: an R library for prototyping and assessing...
bySouth Tyrol Free Software Conference
 
Learning To Rank data2day 2017
byStefan Kühn
 
Training deep auto encoders for collaborative filtering
byMarlesson Santana
 
RecSys 2020 - On Target Item Sampling in Offline Recommender System Evaluation
byPablo Castells
 
Top-N Recommendations from Implicit Feedback leveraging Linked Open Data
byVito Ostuni
 
CLiMF: Collaborative Less-is-More Filtering
byAlexandros Karatzoglou
 
Continuous Evaluation of Collaborative Recommender Systems in Data Stream Man...
byDr. Cornelius Ludmann
 
Part 1
bybutest
 
Gaussian Ranking by Matrix Factorization, ACM RecSys Conference 2015
byHarald Steck
 
Deep Dive to Learning to Rank for Graph Search.pptx
byanirudhk46
 
Introduction to behavior based recommendation system
byKimikazu Kato
 
[UPDATE] Udacity webinar on Recommendation Systems
byAxel de Romblay
 
Recsys matrix-factorizations
byDmitriy Selivanov
 
Highlights from the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2014)
byDavid Zibriczky
 

Recently uploaded

PDF
Digit Expo 2025 - EICC Edinburgh 27th November
byRay Bugg
 
PDF
Making Sense of Raster: From Bit Depth to Better Workflows
bySafe Software
 
PDF
TrustArc Webinar - Looking Ahead: The 2026 Privacy Landscape
byTrustArc
 
PPTX
Combining Induction and Transduction for Abstract Reasoning.pptx
byallen578468
 
PPTX
Ethics in AI - Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals.pptx
byemenyiblessing
 
PDF
Guided Substation Engineering with CoMPAS: Simplifying IEC 61850
byDanBrown980551
 
PPTX
RISE with SAP for Automotive - S4 HANA Value.pptx
byAmira Jemi
 
PDF
Igniting the Future: Copilot trends, agentic transformation and product roadm...
byUni Systems S.M.S.A.
 
PDF
Usage Control for Process Discovery through a Trusted Execution Environment
byValerioGoretti
 
PDF
Agentic Automation for Testers – A Hands-On Deep Dive
byUiPathCommunity
 
PDF
Generative AI in UiPath: Mastering the Generative Extractor for Intelligent D...
byDianaGray10
 
PDF
TrustArc Webinar - Assessing AI Risk with Confidence
byTrustArc
 
PPTX
The Future of IT Service Management AI Automation & Beyond.pptx
byChetu
 
PDF
Vibe Coding vs. Spec-Driven Development [Free Meetup]
byHaim Michael
 
PDF
Generative AI in 2026: Hype, Bubble, Winter or The Real Deal?
byDr. Tathagat Varma
 
PDF
API206-S: Transforming Supply Chains with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore - AWS re:I...
byChris Bingham
 
PDF
The Ultimate Guide to Problem Management Dashboards for IT Teams.pdf
byomnex systems
 
PDF
Recursive Self Improvement vs Continuous Learning
byBob Marcus
 
PDF
8 LLM Surveys https://tinyurl.com/bdz8e6fp
byBob Marcus
 
PDF
Greetings All Students Update 3 by Mia Corp
by©LDMMIA, ©Reiki Yoga
 
Digit Expo 2025 - EICC Edinburgh 27th November
byRay Bugg
 
Making Sense of Raster: From Bit Depth to Better Workflows
bySafe Software
 
TrustArc Webinar - Looking Ahead: The 2026 Privacy Landscape
byTrustArc
 
Combining Induction and Transduction for Abstract Reasoning.pptx
byallen578468
 
Ethics in AI - Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals.pptx
byemenyiblessing
 
Guided Substation Engineering with CoMPAS: Simplifying IEC 61850
byDanBrown980551
 
RISE with SAP for Automotive - S4 HANA Value.pptx
byAmira Jemi
 
Igniting the Future: Copilot trends, agentic transformation and product roadm...
byUni Systems S.M.S.A.
 
Usage Control for Process Discovery through a Trusted Execution Environment
byValerioGoretti
 
Agentic Automation for Testers – A Hands-On Deep Dive
byUiPathCommunity
 
Generative AI in UiPath: Mastering the Generative Extractor for Intelligent D...
byDianaGray10
 
TrustArc Webinar - Assessing AI Risk with Confidence
byTrustArc
 
The Future of IT Service Management AI Automation & Beyond.pptx
byChetu
 
Vibe Coding vs. Spec-Driven Development [Free Meetup]
byHaim Michael
 
Generative AI in 2026: Hype, Bubble, Winter or The Real Deal?
byDr. Tathagat Varma
 
API206-S: Transforming Supply Chains with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore - AWS re:I...
byChris Bingham
 
The Ultimate Guide to Problem Management Dashboards for IT Teams.pdf
byomnex systems
 
Recursive Self Improvement vs Continuous Learning
byBob Marcus
 
8 LLM Surveys https://tinyurl.com/bdz8e6fp
byBob Marcus
 
Greetings All Students Update 3 by Mia Corp
by©LDMMIA, ©Reiki Yoga
 

Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems - ACM RecSys 2013 tutorial

  • 1.
    1 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems Alexandros Karatzogloua , Linas Baltrunasa, Yue Shib aTelefonica Research, Spain bDelft University of Technology, Netherlands
  • 2.
    2 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Who are we? Alexandros, Linas Yue •  Machine Learning •  Recommender Systems •  Data Mining, Social Networks •  Multimedia Indexing & Analysis •  HCI •  System & Networking •  We are looking for interns! •  Multimedia •  Recommender Systems •  Data Mining, Social Networks •  System & Networking
  • 3.
    3 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations in Telefonica
  • 4.
    4 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations in Telefonica
  • 5.
    5 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations in Telefonica
  • 6.
    6 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Previous Contributions in Ranking CIKM 2013: GAPfm: Optimal Top-N Recommendations for Graded Relevance Domains RecSys 2013: xCLiMF: Optimizing Expected Reciprocal Rank for Data with Multiple Levels of Relevance RecSys 2012: CLiMF: Learning to Maximize Reciprocal Rank with Collaborative Less-is-More Filtering * Best Paper Award SIGIR 2012: TFMAP: Optimizing MAP for Top-N Context-aware Recommendation Machine Learning Journal, 2008: Improving Maximum Margin Matrix Factorization * Best Machine Learning Paper Award at ECML PKDD 2008 RecSys 2010: List-wise Learning to Rank with Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Filtering NIPS 2007: CoFiRank - Maximum Margin Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Ranking
  • 7.
    7 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Recommendations are ranked lists
  • 8.
    8 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 INTRO TO RANKING •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
  • 9.
    9 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Popular Ranking Methods •  In order to generate the ranked item list, we need some relative utility score for each item •  Popularity is the obvious baseline •  Score could depend on the user (personalized) •  Score could also depend on the other items in the list (list-wise) •  One popular way to rank the items in RS is to sort the items according to the rating prediction •  Works for the domains with ratings •  Wastes the modeling power for the irrelevant items
  • 10.
    10 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Model + + ++ + + + + + fij = hUi, Vji
  • 11.
    11 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Graphical Notation Relevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Irrelevant   Relevant   Relevant  
  • 12.
    12 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ranking using latent representation •  If user = [-100, -100] •  2d latent factor •  We get the corresponding ranking
  • 13.
    13 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Matrix Factorization (for ranking) •  Randomly initialize item vectors •  Randomly initialize user vectors •  While not converged •  Compute rating prediction error •  Update user factors •  Update item factors •  Lets say user is [-100, -100] •  Compute the square error •  (5-<[-100, -100], [0.180, 0.19]>)2=1764 •  Update the user and item to the direction where the error is reduced (according to the gradient of the loss) 8 items with ratings and random factors
  • 14.
    14 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Square Loss
  • 15.
    15 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Square Loss User: [3, 1], RMSE=6.7
  • 16.
    16 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning  to  Rank  for  Top-­‐k  RecSys   • Usually  we  care  to  make  accurate  ranking  and  not  ra>ng  predic>on   •  Square  loss  op>mizes  to  accurately  predict  1s  and  5s.   • RS  should  get  the  top  items  right  -­‐>  Ranking  problem   • Why  not  to  learn  how  to  rank  directly?   •  Learning  to  Rank  methods  provide  up  to  30%  performance   improvements  in  off-­‐line  evalua>ons   •  It  is  possible,  but  a  more  complex  task  
  • 17.
    17 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Example: average precision (AP) AP = |S| X k=1 P(k) |S| •  AP: we compute the precision at each relevant position and average them P@1+ P@2 + P@4 3 = 1/1+ 2 / 2 +3/ 4 3 = 0.92
  • 18.
    18 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Why is hard? Non Smoothness Example: AP u:[-20,-20] u:[20,20]
  • 19.
    19 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 AP vs RMSE
  • 20.
    20 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 The Non-smoothness of Average Precision APm = 1 PN i=1 ymi NX i=1 ymi rmi NX j=1 ymjI(rmj  rmi) AP = |S| X k=1 P(k) |S| ymi rmi I(·) is 1 if item i is relevant for user m and 0 otherwise indicator function (1 if it is true, 0 otherwise) Rank of item i for user m
  • 21.
    21 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 How can we get a smooth-AP? • We  replace  non  smooth  places  of  MAP  with  smooth  approxima>on   g(x) = 1/(1 + e x ) 1 rmi ⇡ g(fmi) = g(hUm, Vii)
  • 22.
    22 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 How can we get a smooth-MAP? • We  replace  non  smooth  places  of  MAP  with  smooth  approxima>on   g(x) = 1/(1 + e x ) I(rmj  rmi) ⇡ g(fmj fmi) = g(hUm, Vj Vii)
  • 23.
    23 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 u:[-20,-20] u:[20,20] Smooth version of MAP
  • 24.
    24 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Not always the case: only sometimes approximation is very good…
  • 25.
    25 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ranking Inconsistencies •  Achieving a perfect ranking for all users is not possible •  Two Sources of Inconsistencies: •  1) Factor Models (all models) have limited expressive power and cannot learn the perfect ranking for all users •  2) Ranking functions approximations are inconsistent e.g. A >B & B>C but C > A
  • 26.
    26 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Summary on Ranking 101
  • 27.
    27 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 RANKING METRICS •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
  • 28.
    28 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) AUC := 1 |S+||S | S+ X i SX j I(Ri < Rj)
  • 29.
    29 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Reciprocal Rank (RR) RR := 1 Ri
  • 30.
    30 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Average Precision (AP) AP = |S| X k=1 P(k) |S|
  • 31.
    31 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 AP vs RR
  • 32.
    32 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 DCG = X i 2score(i) 1 log2(i + 2) Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG)
  • 33.
    33 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 AP AUC RR Square loss
  • 34.
    34 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Top-k Ranking •  Focus on the very top of the recommendation list since users pay attention only to the first k items •  Top heavy ranking measures put much more emphasis at the top of the list e.g. MRR, MAP, NDCG. •  Drop in measure non-linear with the position in the list •  AUC gives the same emphasis to the top as to the bottom of the list •  drop in measure linear to the position in the list
  • 35.
    35 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 LEARNING TO RANK FOR RECSYS •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
  • 36.
    36 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Learning to Rank for IR and ML •  Query-document (Q-D) retrieval: Given a query, rank documents. (features of a Q-D pair, relevance label) Learn a ranking function Predict relevances of new Q-D pairs RankSVM LambdaRank RankNet RankBoost AdaRank ListNet SVM-MAP SoftRank … Analogy: Query-doc --- User-item
  • 37.
    37 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 •  The Point-wise Approach •  Reduce Ranking to Regression, Classification, or Ordinal Regression problem •  The Pairwise Approach •  Reduce Ranking to pair-wise classification •  List-wise Approach •  Direct optimization of IR measures, List-wise loss minimization Learning to Rank in CF f(user, item) ! R f(user, item1, item2) ! R f(user, item1, . . . , itemn) ! R
  • 38.
    38 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Overview Classification by What to Model Pointwise Pairwise Listwise Matrix factorization [Koren 2009] BPR [Rendle 2009] CofiRank [Weimer 2007] SVD++ [Koren 2008] EigenRank [Liu 2008] ListRank [Shi 2010] OrdRec [Koren 2011] pLPA [Liu 2009] WLT [Volkovs 2012] Factorization machines [Rendle 2012] CR [Balakrishnan 2012] TFMAP [Shi 2012a] (All rating prediction methods) CLiMF [Shi 2012b] GAPfm [Shi 2013a] xCLiMF [Shi 2013b]
  • 39.
    39 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Overview Classification by How to Model Proxy of rankings Structured estimation Non-smooth optimization Smoothing ranking measures (All the rating prediction methods) CofiRank [Weimer 2007] WLT [Volkovs 2012] BPR [Rendle 2009] EigenRank [Liu 2008] TFMAP [Shi 2012a] pLPA [Liu 2009] CLiMF [Shi 2012b] ListRank [Shi 2010] GAPfm [Shi 2013a] CR [Balakrishnan 2012] xCLiMF [Shi 2013b]
  • 40.
    40 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Pointwise Standard Matrix Factorization [Koren 2009] 12355111u4 33334233u3 41155334u2 25532111u1 i8i7i6i5i4i3i2i1 12355111u4 33334233u3 41155334u2 25532111u1 i8i7i6i5i4i3i2i1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? U (4×D) V (D×8) ×~ Learn latent factors of users (U) and latent factors of items (V), so that the product of U and V can fit the known data. The ratings of unseen items predicted by corresponding inner products Each user represented by a D-dim vector Each item represented by a D-dim vector
  • 41.
    41 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Pointwise 1 4 24 3 3 5 4 3 fij = hUi, Vji l(fij, yij) = 1 2 (fij yij)2
  • 42.
    42 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ordrec [Koren 2011] Ratings are not numeric, but ordinal. Ordinal modeling by learning the thresholds 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Item with rating 4 should be more similar to that with rating 5 Item with rating 4 should be less similar to that with rating 1
  • 43.
    43 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 OrdRec [Koren 2011] Pointwise, proxy 1 2 3 4 5 t1 t2 t3 t4 log( s 1 s ) = ts hUi, Mji P( s) = s
  • 44.
    44 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 OrdRec [Koren 2011] 1 2 3 4 5 Parameterize the threshold into: User factor, item factor and previous threshold Full distribution estimation
  • 45.
    45 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 BPR [Rendle 2009] Pairwise, smoothing Main idea: learn by comparing items that the user likes with items that he does not. + - > Optimize the AUC, use a smooth version for Optimization purposes When dealing with implicit data sample the unseen data as negative
  • 46.
    46 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Representation of pairwise preference data Transformers (T) ? Inception (I) ? Scent of a woman (S) 1 Forrest Gump (F) 1 Zombieland (Z) ? What Alice watched What Alice’s pairwise preferences (Row to Column) T I S F Z T ? - - ? I ? - - ? S + + ? + F + + ? + Z ? ? - - BPR [Rendle 2009] Pairwise, smoothing
  • 47.
    47 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 EigenRank [Liu 2008] Pairwise, proxy Ranking-based similarity instead of rating based similarity i1 i2 i3 u1 2 3 4 u2 4 2 5 User-user similarity based on Kendall Rank Correlation Neighbour selection for a user and item preference estimation Random walk with restart over pairwise item preference graph
  • 48.
    48 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Listwise Learn to model individual ratings Learn to model ranked list, or to model evaluation metrics that capture the quality of ranked list Listwise perspective CofiRank ListRank CLiMF TFMAP GAPfm xCLiMF f(user, item) f(user, item) f(user, item) f(user,item1,item2,item3)
  • 49.
    49 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Based on Structured estimation i.e. Machine Learning methods for complex output domains (graphs, sequences, etc.) •  Cast the Ranking problem as a Structured estimation problem •  i.e. Learn a function that is maximized for the best possible ranking with respect to a ranking measure e.g. NDCG
  • 50.
    50 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Step 1: •  Instead of maximizing •  Minimize DCG@k(⇡, y) = kX i=1 (2yi 1) log(⇡i + 1) (⇡, y) := 1 NDCG(⇡, y)
  • 51.
    51 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Step 2: •  Use the •  Create a linear mapping •  that is maximized for •  denote by a decreasing nonnegative sequence ha, bi  hsort(a), sort(b)i 8a, b 2 Rn (⇡, f) := hc, f⇡i ⇡ = argsort(f)
  • 52.
    52 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] Listwise, structured est. •  Step 3: •  Find convex upper on non-convex optimization problems: Let Maximization by solving a Linear Assignment Problem to get an estimate for the worst case loss (maximum margin) l(f, y) := max ⇡ h (⇡, y) + hc, f⇡ fi i
  • 53.
    53 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007] 1.6 2.6 2.9 1.9f l(f, y) := max ⇡ h (⇡, y) + hc, f⇡ fi i c := (i + 1) 0.5 := [1, 0.7 ,0.57 ,0.5] ⇡ := [3, 2 ,4 ,1] ⇡ 1 := [4, 2 ,1 ,3] @f l(f, y) = [c c⇡ 1 ] := [-0.5, 0.0 ,0.42 ,0.1] 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.6f⇡
  • 54.
    54 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CoFiRank [Weimer 2007]
  • 55.
    55 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CLiMF [Shi 2012b] Listwise, Smoothing Ranking Metrics •  Why optimize mean reciprocal rank (MRR)? •  Focus at the very top of the list •  Try to get at least one interesting item at the top of the list •  How to optimize MRR? •  Find a smooth version of MRR •  Find a lower bound of the smoothed MRR
  • 56.
    56 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 The Non-smoothness of Reciprocal Rank •  Reciprocal Rank (RR): The inverse of the rank of the first relevant item in a given list. RRi = NX j=1 Yij Rij NY k=1 (1 YikI(Rik < Rij)) RRi Rank-based component Rank-based component I(Rik < Rij) ⇡ g(fik fij) 1 Rij ⇡ g(fij)
  • 57.
    57 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Reciprocal Rank
  • 58.
    58 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Lower Bound RRi ⇡ NX j=1 Yijg(fij) NY k=1 1 Yikg(fik fij) L(Ui, V ) = NX j=1 Yij ⇥ ln g(fij) + NX k=1 ln 1 Yikg(fik fij) ⇤ O(n+2 ) Jensen’s inequality Concavity of log function
  • 59.
    59 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 What’s the Key? •  CLiMF reciprocal rank loss essentially pushes relevant items apart •  In the process at least one items ends up high-up in the list
  • 60.
    60 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Conventional loss
  • 61.
    61 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 CLiMF MRR-loss
  • 62.
    62 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Optimizing RR vs. AUC Opt. RR Opt. AUC
  • 63.
    63 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Listwise xCLiMF [Shi 2013b] – Generalization to Ratings •  Expected reciprocal rank (ERR) [Chapelle 2009] •  A generalization of RR to graded relevance data •  Cascade nature compared to NDCG 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 NDCG ERR Equal contribution independent of the items ranked above Different contributions relative to the items ranked above = <
  • 64.
    64 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 xCLiMF vs. CLiMF 0.000   0.100   0.200   0.300   0.400   3   4   MRR   Relevance  threshold   CLiMF   xCLiMF   0.000   0.050   0.100   0.150   0.200   0.250   0.300   3   4   ERR   Relevance  threshold   CLiMF   xCLiMF   Results from Tuenti video watching dataset xCLiMF shows its advantage over CLiMF when applied to graded relevance data
  • 65.
    65 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Listwise TFMAP [Shi 2012a] – Generalization to Context Context-aware Recommendation
  • 66.
    66 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Problem Setting •  Given: Users’ implicit feedback on items under different contexts •  Target: To recommend a list of items to each user under any given context, as accurate as possible Users Contexts Items Top-N recommendation Context-aware Optimal in terms of MAP
  • 67.
    67 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Main Concept of TFMAP •  CP tensor factorization U,V,C are latent factors (parameters to be learned) U, V, C are learned from optimizing the smoothed MAP
  • 68.
    68 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 TRENDS AND CHALLENGES •  Intro to in Ranking •  Ranking measures •  Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems •  Classification of approaches •  Trends and Challenges
  • 69.
    69 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Deep Learning Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) •  A (generative stochastic) Neural Network •  Learns a probability distribution over its inputs •  Used in dimensionality reduction, CF, topic modeling, feature learning •  Essential components of Deep Learning methods (DBN's, DBM's)
  • 70.
    70 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 RBMs for CF [Salakhutdinov 2007] ? ? ? ? ? 1 2 3 4 5 h v W Learning hidden variables for each user Learning weight matrix shared by all the users Known data
  • 71.
    71 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Bandits •  In many domains items are constantly new (e.g. news recommendation, computational advertisement) •  Contextual Bandits are on-line learning algorithms that work by “exploring” the user preference space and “exploiting” the resulting models in serving recommendations •  There has been little work in finding optimal strategies in terms of the ranking of items
  • 72.
    72 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Ranking aggregation •  Ensemble methods and Hybrid methods are commonly used in industry •  Aggregating the resulting rankings provided by different recommendations methods is not trivial •  Currently an open research field
  • 73.
    73 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Modelling Dependencies in Rankings •  Most ranking methods are oblivious to the other items in the recommended ranked list. •  For example Diversity is not taken into account in most ranking methods •  Basket recommendation or next item recommendation cannot be handled by most current methods
  • 74.
    74 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Meet Okapi •  A new Collaborative Ranking framework that runs on apache Giraph •  Written in Java •  accessible for a large(r) audience •  good for unit testing •  Distributed, "large scale ready" computing •  Reproducibility •  has a distributed evaluation framework •  http://baltrunas.info/research-menu/okapi
  • 75.
    75 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 Thank you ! Telefonica Research is looking for interns! Contact: alexk@tid.es or linas@tid.es
  • 76.
    76 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 References q  Balakrishnan, S., & Chopra, S. (2012, February). Collaborative ranking. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 143-152). ACM. q  Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E., Lazier, A., Deeds, M., Hamilton, N., & Hullender, G. (2005, August). Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning (pp. 89-96). ACM. q  Cao, Z., Qin, T., Liu, T. Y., Tsai, M. F., & Li, H. (2007, June). Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning (pp. 129-136). ACM. q  Chapelle, O., Metlzer, D., Zhang, Y., & Grinspan, P. (2009, November). Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 621-630). ACM. q  Joachims, T. (2002, July). Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 133-142). ACM. q  Koren, Y. (2008, August). Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 426-434). ACM. q  Koren, Y., Bell, R., & Volinsky, C. (2009). Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer, 42(8), 30-37. q  Koren, Y., & Sill, J. (2011, October). OrdRec: an ordinal model for predicting personalized item rating distributions. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 117-124). ACM. q  Liu, N. N., & Yang, Q. (2008, July). Eigenrank: a ranking-oriented approach to collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 83-90). ACM.
  • 77.
    77 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 q  Liu, N. N., Zhao, M., & Yang, Q. (2009, November). Probabilistic latent preference analysis for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 759-766). ACM. q  Quoc, C., & Le, V. (2007). Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 19, 193-200. q  Rendle, S., Freudenthaler, C., Gantner, Z., & Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2009, June). BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 452-461). AUAI Press. q  Rendle, S. (2012). Factorization machines with libFM. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 3(3), 57. q  Salakhutdinov, R., Mnih, A., & Hinton, G. (2007, June). Restricted Boltzmann machines for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning (pp. 791-798). ACM. q  Shi, Y., Larson, M., & Hanjalic, A. (2010, September). List-wise learning to rank with matrix factorization for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 269-272). ACM. q  Shi, Y., Karatzoglou, A., Baltrunas, L., Larson, M., Hanjalic, A., & Oliver, N. (2012a, August). TFMAP: Optimizing MAP for top-n context-aware recommendation. In Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 155-164). ACM. q  Shi, Y., Karatzoglou, A., Baltrunas, L., Larson, M., Oliver, N., & Hanjalic, A. (2012b, September). CLiMF: learning to maximize reciprocal rank with collaborative less-is-more filtering. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 139-146). ACM. q  Taylor, M., Guiver, J., Robertson, S., & Minka, T. (2008, February). Softrank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining (pp. 77-86). ACM.
  • 78.
    78 RecSys ’13, HongKong, China, Oct. 12, 2013 q  Volkovs, M., & Zemel, R. S. (2012). Collaborative ranking with 17 parameters. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 2303-2311). q  Weimer, M., Karatzoglou, A., Le, Q. V., & Smola, A. J. (2007). Cofi rank-maximum margin matrix factorization for collaborative ranking. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1593-1600). q  Xu, J., & Li, H. (2007, July). Adarank: a boosting algorithm for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 391-398). ACM. q  Yue, Y., Finley, T., Radlinski, F., & Joachims, T. (2007, July). A support vector method for optimizing average precision. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 271-278). ACM.