Survey of Recommendation Systems


Published on

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
  • Hello my dear
    I am Modester by name good day. i just went to your profile this time true this site ( and i got your detail and your explanation in fact the way you explain your self shows me that you are innocent and maturity and also understand person i decided to have a contact with you so that we can explain to our self each other because God great everyone to make a friend with each other and from that we know that we are from thism planet God great for us ok my dear please try and reach me through my email address ( so that i can send you my picture true your reply we can know each other ok have a nice day and God bless you yours Modester
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Survey of Recommendation Systems

  1. 1. Survey of Recommendation Systems
  2. 2. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  3. 3. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  4. 4. Introduction • What is recommendation system? – Recommend related items – Personalized experiences • How to build a recommendation system? – Content-Based – Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Examples – Amazon – Youa
  5. 5. Examples Browsing a book Recommendations Rating?
  6. 6. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  7. 7. CF Algorithm • Memory-Based  User-Based  Item-Based • Model-Based  Bayes  Clustering
  8. 8. User-Based CF Algorithm
  9. 9. User-Based CF Algorithm User by Item Matrix: Table 1: An example of user-item matrix Table 2: A simple example of ratings matrix
  10. 10. User-Based CF Algorithm Voting : vi,j corresponding to the vote for user i on item j. Mean Vote : where Ii is the set of items on which user i voted. Predicted vote: weights of n similar usersnormalizer
  11. 11. Similarity Computation Vector Cosine-Based Similarity Correlation-Based Similarity (Pearson) Other Similarities
  12. 12. Vector Cosine-Based Similarity Vector cosine similarity:        Uu ujuUu uiu Uu ujuuiu BA rrrr rrrr w 2 , 2 , ,, , )()( ))(( Adjusted cosine similarity: different rating scale?
  13. 13. Correlation-Based Similarity Pearson correlation: Thus in the example in Table 2, we have w1,5 = 0.756.
  14. 14. Prediction Computation Weighted Sum of Others’ Ratings: For the simple example in Table 4, using the user-based CF algorithm, to predict the rating for U1 on I2, we have
  15. 15. Recommendations I Rating Prediction Algorithm: a) Calculate Pa,i for each item i with prediction computation formulation. b) Recommend the top-N highest rating items that the active user a has not purchased.
  16. 16. Recommendations II K Nearest Neighbors Algorithm: a) Find k most similar users (KNN). b) Identify a set of items, C, purchased by the group together with their frequency. c) Recommend the top-N most frequent items in C that the active user has not purchased.
  17. 17. Item-Based CF Algorithm Correlation-Based Similarity: where ru,i is the rating of user u on item i, is the average rating of the ith item by those users. User-Item Matrix ir
  18. 18. Prediction Computation Simple Weighted Average: where wi,n is the weight between items i and n, ru,n is the rating for user u on item n.
  19. 19. Extensions • Default Voting • Inverse User Frequency • Case Amplification
  20. 20. Default Voting Problem: • pair-wise similarity is computed only from the ratings in the intersection of the items both users have rated. • too few votes at the beginning Solution:  Assuming some default voting values for the missing ratings can improve the CF prediction performance.  Dimension Reduction, such as SVD, PCA etc.
  21. 21. Inverse User Frequency Definition: )/log( ji nnf  where nj is the number of users who have rated item j and n is the total number of users.
  22. 22. Case Amplification where ρ is the case amplification power, ρ ≥ 1, and typical choice of ρ is 2.5. Case amplification reduces noise in the data. It tends to favor high weights as small values raised to a power become negligible. For example, wi,j = 0.9, then it remains high (0.92.5 ≈ 0.8); if wi,j = 0.1, then it be negligible (0.12.5 ≈ 0.003).
  23. 23. Model-Based CF Algorithm • Simple Bayesian CF Algorithm • Clustering CF Algorithm
  24. 24. Simple Bayesian CF Algorithm Simple Bayesian: Laplace Estimator:
  25. 25. Simple Bayesian CF Algorithm Example in Table 4, to produce the rating for U1 on I2 using the Simple Bayesian CF algorithm and the Laplace Estimator:
  26. 26. Clustering CF Algorithm For two data objects, X = (x1, x2, …, xn) and Y = (y1, y2, …, yn), the popular Minkowski distance is defined as, where n is the dimension number of the object, and q is a positive integer. Obviously, when q = 1, d is Manhattan distance; when q = 2, d is Euclidian distance.
  27. 27. Evaluation Metrics Mean Absolute Error and Normalized Mean Absolute Error: where rmax and rmin are the upper and lower bounds of the ratings.
  28. 28. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  29. 29. Challenges • Data sparsity • Scalability • Synonymy • Gray Sheep • Shilling Attacks
  30. 30. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  31. 31. Demo • Tools:Mahout - Scalable machine learning and data mining library, • Data: MovieLens,
  32. 32. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  33. 33. Conclusions CF categories Memory-based CF Representative techniques Item-based/user-based top-N recommendations Main advantages 1. easy implementation 2. new data can be added easily and incrementally 3. need not consider the content of the items being recommended 4. scale well with co-rated items Main shortcomings 1. are dependent on human ratings 2. performance decrease when data are sparse 3. cannot recommend for new users and items 4. have limited scalability for large
  34. 34. Conclusions CF categories Model-based CF Representative techniques 1. Bayesian belief nets CF 2. Clustering CF 3. CF using dimensionality reduction techniques, SVD, PCA Main advantages 1. better address the sparsity, scalability and other problems 2. improve prediction performance 3. give an intuitive rationale for recommendations Main shortcomings 1. expensive model-building 2. trade-off between prediction performance and scalability 3. lose useful information for dimensionality reduction techniques
  35. 35. Outline • Introduction • Collaborative Filtering Algorithm • Challenges • Experiments (demo) • Summary • Future work
  36. 36. Future work Scalability Real-time
  37. 37. Q & A
  38. 38. References  J. Breese, D. Heckerman, and C. Kadie, “Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering,” in Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI ’98), 1998.  B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl, “Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms,” in Proc. of the WWW Conference, 2001.  K. Miyahara and M. J. Pazzani, “Collaborative filtering with the simple Bayesian classifier,” in Proceedings of the 6th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 679–689, 2000.  L. H. Ungar and D. P. Foster, “Clustering methods for collaborative filtering,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on Recommendation Systems, AAAI Press, 1998.  Xiaoyuan Su and Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, “A Survey of Collaborative Filtering Techniques,” in Advances in Artificial Intelligence Volume 2009, Article ID 421425, 19 pages.