skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186159acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

How to Impute Missing Ratings?: Claims, Solution, and Its Application to Collaborative Filtering

Published:23 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Data sparsity is one of the biggest problems faced by collaborative filtering used in recommender systems. Data imputation alleviates the data sparsity problem by inferring missing ratings and imputing them to the original rating matrix. In this paper, we identify the limitations of existing data imputation approaches and suggest three new claims that all data imputation approaches should follow to achieve high recommendation accuracy. Furthermore, we propose a deep-learning based approach to compute imputed values that satisfies all three claims. Based on our hypothesis that most pre-use preferences (e.g., impressions) on items lead to their post-use preferences (e.g., ratings), our approach tries to understand via deep learning how pre-use preferences lead to post-use preferences differently depending on the characteristics of users and items. Through extensive experiments on real-world datasets, we verify our three claims and hypothesis, and also demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches.

References

  1. G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin. 2005. Toward the Next Generation of Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering Vol. 17 (2005), 734--749. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Chang, F. M. Harper, and L. G. Terveen. 2016. Crowd-Based Personalized Natural Language Explanations for Recommendations Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Recommender Systems. 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Cremonesi, Y. Koren, and R. Turrin. 2010. Performance of Recommender Algorithms on Top-N Recommendation Tasks Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Recommender Systems. 39--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Doersch. 2016. Tutorial on Variational Autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. B. Sarwar et al.. 2001. Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms Proc. Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web. 285--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Kingma et al.. 2014 a. Semi-supervised Learning with Deep Generative Models Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 3581--3589. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. K. Chae et al.. 2018 a. On Identifying k-Nearest Neighbors in Neighborhood Models for Efficient and Effective Collaborative Filtering. Neurocomputing Vol. 278 (2018), 124--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. Lee et al.. 2013 a. Alleviating the Sparsity in Collaborative Filtering using Crowdsourcing Proc. of Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation for Recommender Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Lee et al.. 2016 a. Improving the Accuracy of Top-N Recommendation using a Preference Model. Information Sciences Vol. 348 (2016), 290--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. W. Ha et al.. 2012 a. Top-N Recommendation through Belief Propagation. In Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. 2343--2346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. H. Jang et al.. 2016 b. PIN-TRUST: Fast Trust Propagation Exploiting Positive, Implicit, and Negative Information. In Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. 629--638. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Pan et al.. 2008. One-Class Collaborative Filtering. In Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Data Mining. 502--511. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. C. Lee et al.. 2015 a. A Graph-Based Recommendation Framework for Price-Comparison Services Proc. Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web. 59--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. C. Lee et al.. 2017. A Single-Step Approach to Recommendation Diversification Proc. Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web. 809--810. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Rendle et al.. 2009. BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback Proc. Int'l Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 452--461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. V. Sindhwani et al.. 2010 a. One-Class Matrix Completion with Low-Density Factorizations Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Data Mining. 1055--1060. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. W. S. Hwang et al.. 2013 b. Exploiting Trustors as well as Trustees in Trust-Based Recommendation Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. 1893--1896. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W. S. Hwang et al.. 2014 b. Data Imputation using a Trust Network for Recommendation Proc. Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web. 299--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. W. S. Hwang et al.. 2015 b. On Exploiting Trustors in Trust-Based Recommendation. Journal of Internet Technology Vol. 16, 4 (2015), 755--765.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. W. S. Hwang et al.. 2016 c. Efficient Recommendation Methods using Category Experts for a Large Dataset. Information Fusion Vol. 28 (2016), 75--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. W. S. Hwang et al.. 2016 d. “Told You I Didn't Like It”: Exploiting Uninteresting Items for Effective Collaborative Filtering. In Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Data Engineering. 349--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. X. He et al.. 2016 e. Fast Matrix Factorization for Online Recommendation with Implicit Feedback Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 549--558. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Y. C. Lee et al.. 2018 b. gOCCF: Graph-Theoretic One-Class Collaborative Filtering Based on Uninteresting Items Proc. AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Y. Li et al.. 2010 b. Improving One-Class Collaborative Filtering by Incorporating rich User Information Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. 959--968. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Y. Pu et al.. 2016 f. Variational Autoencoder for Deep Learning of Images, Labels and Captions Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2352--2360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Y. Ren et al.. 2012 b. The Efficient Imputation Method for Neighborhood-Based Collaborative Filtering. In Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. 684--693. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Y. Ren et al.. 2013 c. AdaM: Adaptive-Maximum Imputation for Neighborhood-Based Collaborative Filtering. In Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. 628--635. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Y. Yao et al.. 2014 c. Dual-Regularized One-Class Collaborative Filtering Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. 759--768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Z. Gantner et al.. 2011. MyMediaLite: A Free Recommender System Library. In Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Recommender Systems. 305--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. R. He and J. McAuley. 2016. Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evolution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filtering. In Proc. Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web. 507--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Y. Hu, Y. Koren, and C. Volinsky. 2008. Collaborative Filtering for Implicit Feedback Datasets Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Data Mining. 263--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. D. Kingma and M. Welling. 2013. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Y. Koren. 2008. Factorization Meets the Neighborhood: A Multifaceted Collaborative Filtering Model. In Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 426--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky. 2009. Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems. Computer Vol. 42 (2009), 30--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. X. Li and J. She. 2017. Collaborative Variational Autoencoder for Recommender Systems Proc. of ACM Int'l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 305--314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. H. Ma, I. King, and M. R. Lyu. 2007. Effective Missing Data Prediction for Collaborative Filtering Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 39--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Nathan and J. Tommi. 2003. Weighted Low-Rank Approximations. In Proc. Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning. 720--727. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. R. Pan and M. Scholz. 2009. Mind the Gaps: Weighting the Unknown in Large-Scale One-Class Collaborative Filtering Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 667--676. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. W. Pan and L. Chen. 2013. GBPR: Group Preference Based Bayesian Personalized Ranking for One-Class Collaborative Filtering. In Proc. Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. 2691--2697. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. S. Rendle and C. Freudenthaler. 2014. Improving Pairwise Learning for Item Recommendation from Implicit Feedback Proc. Int'l Conf. on Web Search and Data Mining. 273--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. R. Salakhutdinov and A. Mnih. 2008. Probabilistic Matrix Factorization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1257--1264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. B. Smyth, R. Rafter, and S. Banks. 2016. Harnessing Crowdsourced Recommendation Preference Data from Casual Gameplay Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization. 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. H. Steck. 2010. Training and Testing of Recommender Systems on Data Missing Not at Random Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 713--722. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. M. Volkovs and G. W. Yu. 2015. Effective Latent Models for Binary Feedback in Recommender Systems Proc. ACM Int'l Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 313--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How to Impute Missing Ratings?: Claims, Solution, and Its Application to Collaborative Filtering

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
      April 2018
      2000 pages
      ISBN:9781450356398

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

      Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate170of1,155submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format