skip to main content
10.1145/3219819.3220112acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Local Latent Space Models for Top-N Recommendation

Published:19 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Users' behaviors are driven by their preferences across various aspects of items they are potentially interested in purchasing, viewing, etc. Latent space approaches model these aspects in the form of latent factors. Although such approaches have been shown to lead to good results, the aspects that are important to different users can vary. In many domains, there may be a set of aspects for which all users care about and a set of aspects that are specific to different subsets of users. To explicitly capture this, we consider models in which there are some latent factors that capture the shared aspects and some user subset specific latent factors that capture the set of aspects that the different subsets of users care about.

In particular, we propose two latent space models: rGLSVD and sGLSVD, that combine such a global and user subset specific sets of latent factors. The rGLSVD model assigns the users into different subsets based on their rating patterns and then estimates a global and a set of user subset specific local models whose number of latent dimensions can vary.

The sGLSVD model estimates both global and user subset specific local models by keeping the number of latent dimensions the same among these models but optimizes the grouping of the users in order to achieve the best approximation. Our experiments on various real-world datasets show that the proposed approaches significantly outperform state-of-the-art latent space top-N recommendation approaches.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

christakopoulou_space_models.mp4

mp4

368.4 MB

References

  1. {n. d.}. Flixster Dataset. http://http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~sja25/personal/datasets/. ({n. d.}).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. Local Latent Space Models for Top-N Recommendation Appendix - Technical Report. https://www.cs.umn.edu/sites/cs.umn.edu/files/tech_reports/18-010. pdf. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. James Bennett, Stan Lanning, et al. 2007. The netflix prize. In Proceedings of KDD cup and workshop, Vol. 2007. New York, NY, USA, 35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Michael W Berry. 1992. Large-scale sparse singular value computations. The International Journal of Supercomputing Applications 6, 1 (1992), 13--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Alex Beutel, Ed H Chi, Zhiyuan Cheng, Hubert Pham, and John Anderson. 2017. Beyond Globally Optimal: Focused Learning for Improved Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 203--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Evangelia Christakopoulou and George Karypis. 2016. Local item-item models for top-n recommendation. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 67--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Konstantina Christakopoulou and Arindam Banerjee. 2015. Collaborative Ranking with a Push at the Top. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 205--215. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Paolo Cremonesi, Yehuda Koren, and Roberto Turrin. 2010. Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 39--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Mukund Deshpande and George Karypis. 2004. Item-based top-n recommendation algorithms. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 22, 1 (2004), 143--177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Thomas George and Srujana Merugu. 2005. A scalable collaborative filtering framework based on co-clustering. In Data Mining, Fifth IEEE international conference on. IEEE, 4--pp. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ken Goldberg, Theresa Roeder, Dhruv Gupta, and Chris Perkins. 2001. Eigentaste: A constant time collaborative filtering algorithm. Information Retrieval 4, 2 (2001), 133--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Guibing Guo, Jie Zhang, Zhu Sun, and Neil Yorke-Smith. 2015. LibRec: A Java Library for Recommender Systems.. In UMAP Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. F Maxwell Harper and Joseph A Konstan. 2016. The movielens datasets: History and context. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 5, 4 (2016), 19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Yifan Hu, Yehuda Koren, and Chris Volinsky. 2008. Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets. In Data Mining, 2008. ICDM'08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on. Ieee, 263--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. George Karypis. 2002. CLUTO-a clustering toolkit. Technical Report. MINNESOTA UNIV MINNEAPOLIS DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Yehuda Koren. 2008. Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 426--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yehuda Koren. 2010. Factor in the neighbors: Scalable and accurate collaborative filtering. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 4, 1 (2010), 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Joonseok Lee, Samy Bengio, Seungyeon Kim, Guy Lebanon, and Yoram Singer. 2014. Local collaborative ranking. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. ACM, 85--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Joonseok Lee, Seungyeon Kim, Guy Lebanon, and Yoram Singer. 2013. Local low-rank matrix approximation. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 82--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Joonseok Lee, Mingxuan Sun, and Guy Lebanon. 2012. Prea: Personalized recommendation algorithms toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research 13, Sep (2012), 2699--2703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Xia Ning and George Karypis. 2011. Slim: Sparse linear methods for top-n recommender systems. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on. IEEE, 497--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mark O'Connor and Jon Herlocker. 1999. Clustering items for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR workshop on recommender systems, Vol. 128. UC Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Rong Pan, Yunhong Zhou, Bin Cao, Nathan N Liu, Rajan Lukose, Martin Scholz, and Qiang Yang. 2008. One-class collaborative filtering. In Data Mining, 2008. ICDM'08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 502--511. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2009. BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. AUAI Press, 452--461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Badrul M Sarwar, George Karypis, Joseph Konstan, and John Riedl. 2002. Recommender systems for large-scale e-commerce: Scalable neighborhood formation using clustering. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computer and information technology, Vol. 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yue Shi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, Martha Larson, Nuria Oliver, and Alan Hanjalic. 2012. CLiMF: learning to maximize reciprocal rank with collaborative less-is-more filtering. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 139--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Pang-Ning Tan et al. 2007. Introduction to data mining. Pearson Education India.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jason Weston, Ron J Weiss, and Hector Yee. 2013. Nonlinear latent factorization by embedding multiple user interests. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 65--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Bin Xu, Jiajun Bu, Chun Chen, and Deng Cai. 2012. An exploration of improving collaborative recommender systems via user-item subgroups. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Local Latent Space Models for Top-N Recommendation

        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
          KDD '18: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
          July 2018
          2925 pages
          ISBN:9781450355520
          DOI:10.1145/3219819

          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 the author(s) 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

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 19 July 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          KDD '18 Paper Acceptance Rate107of983submissions,11%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader