CS 548 Spring 2015 Web Mining Showcase

By Salah Ahmed, Hai Liu, Shaocheng Wang, Sijing Yang

Showcasing Work by
[Link] on Recommender
System
 References:
1. Linden, G.; Smith, B.; York, J.; , "[Link] recommendations: item-to-item
collaborative filtering,". Internet Computing, IEEE , vol.7, no.1, pp. 76- 80, Jan/Feb
2003
2. Takács, G.; Pilászy, I.; Németh, B.; Tikk, D. (March 2009). "Scalable Collaborative
Filtering Approaches for Large Recommender Systems". Journal of Machine Learning
Research 10: 623-656
3. Candillier, L., Meyer, F., & Boull'e Marc. (2007). Comparing state-of-the-art
collaborative filtering systems. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition, Leipzig, Germany. 548-
562. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73499-4_41
4. Ala Alluhaidan, Ala, "Recommender System Using Collaborative Filtering Algorithm"
(2013). Technical Library. Paper 155. [Link]
5. Francesco Ricci, Slides on "Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering and Matrix
Factorization".
[Link]
[Link]
6. Xavier Amatriain, Bamshad Mobasher; KDD 2014 Tutorial - the recommender
problem revisited. [Link]

@[Link] 1
 Why Recommender?

“We are leaving the age of information and entering the age of recommendation.”

—— Chris Anderson in “The Long Tail”

@[Link] Picture from: [Link]
2
 The Age of Recommendation

Search:

User Items

Recommend:

Items User

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 3

 Amazon: A personalized online store

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 4

 Amazon: A personalized online store

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 5

 Recommender Problem
A good recommender
• Show programming titles to a software engineer and baby toys to a new
mother.
• Don’t recommend items user already knows or would find anyway.
• Expand user’s taste without offending or annoying him/her…

Challenges
• Huge amounts of data, tens of millions of customers and millions of distinct
catalog items.
• Results are required to be returned in real time.
• New customers have limited information.
• Old customers can have a glut of information.
• Customer data is volatile.

@[Link] 6
 Amazon’s solution
1. Amazon Recommendation Engine
• Amazon’s model that implements recommendation algorithm.
• Recommendation algorithm is designed to personalize the online store for each customer.

2. Algorithm feature
• Most recommendation algorithms start by finding a set of similar customers whose purchased and
rated items overlap the user’s purchased and rated items.
• The Amazon’s item-to-item collaborative filtering is focusing on finding similar items instead of
similar customers.

3. Recommendation Engine Workflow

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 7

 Traditional Recommendation Algorithms

Two mostly used traditional algorithms:

1. User Based Collaborative Filtering

2. Cluster Models

@[Link] 8
 User Based Collaborative Filtering
Approach
• Represents a customer as an N-dimensional vector of items
• Vector is positive for purchased or positively rated items and negative for negatively rated items
• Based on cosine similarity: finds similar customers/users

• Generates recommendations based on a few customers who are most similar to the user
• Rank each item according to how many similar customers purchased it
Problems
• computationally expensive, O(MN) in the worst case, where
─ M is the number of customers and
─ N is the number of items

• dimensionality reduction can increase the performance, BUT, also reduce the quality of the
recommendation
• For very large data sets, such as 10 million customers and 1 million items, the algorithm
encounters severe performance and scaling issues

@[Link] 9
 Cluster Models
Approach
• Divide the customer base into many segments and treat the task as a classification
problem
• Assign the user to the segment containing the most similar customers
• Uses the purchases and ratings of the customers in the segment to generate
recommendations
• Cluster models have better online scalability and performance than collaborative
filtering because they compare the user to a controlled number of segments rather
than the entire customer base.
Problems
• Quality of the recommendation is low
• The recommendations are less relevant because the similar customers that the cluster
models find are not the most similar customers
• To improve quality, it needs online segmentation, which is almost as expensive as
finding similar customers using collaborative filtering

@[Link] 10
 Amazon’s Item-to-Item CF

• Difference with User-to-User CF

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 11

 Amazon’s Item-to-Item CF

@[Link] Picture from: Francesco Ricci, Slides [5] 12

 Amazon’s Item-to-Item CF
How It Works
• Matches each of the user’s purchased and rated items to similar items
• Combines those similar items into a recommendation list
An iterative algorithm:
• Builds a similar-items table by finding items that customers tend to purchase
together
• Provides a better approach by calculating the similarity between a single product
and all related products:

• The similarity between two items uses the cosine measure

• Each vector corresponds to an item rather than a customer and
• Vector’s M dimensions correspond to customers who have purchased that item
@[Link] 13
 Offline computation : Online Recommendation

Offline Computation:
• builds a similar-items table which is extremely time intensive, O(N2M)
• In practice, it’s closer to O(NM), as most customers have very few purchases
• Sampling customers can also reduce runtime even further with little
reduction in quality.

Online Recommendation:
• Given a similar-items table, the algorithm
─ finds items similar to each of the user’s purchases and ratings,
─ aggregates those items, and then
─ recommends the most popular or correlated items.

@[Link] 14
 Scalability and Quality: Comparison

User Based collaborative filtering: Item-to-Item collaborative filtering:

─ little or no offline computation ─ scalability and performance are achieved by
─ impractical on large data sets, unless it uses creating the expensive similar-items table
dimensionality reduction, sampling, or offline
partitioning ─ online component "looking up similar items“
─ dimensionality reduction, sampling, or scales independently of the catalog size or the
partitioning reduces recommendation quality number of customers
─ fast for extremely large data sets
Cluster models: ─ recommendation quality is excellent since it
─ can perform much of the computation offline, recommends highly correlated similar items
─ but recommendation quality is relatively poor ─ unlike traditional collaborative filtering,
 the algorithm performs well with limited
user data,
 producing high-quality recommendations
based on as few as two or three items

@[Link] 15
 Results:
• The MovieLens dataset contains 1 million ratings from 6,040 users on 3,900
movies.
• The best overall results are reached by the item-by-item based approach. It
needs 170 seconds to construct the model and 3 seconds to predict 100,021
ratings.

Table from: Candillier, L., Meyer, F., & Boull'e Marc. (2007).
@[Link] Comparing state-of-the-art collaborative filtering systems [3]
16
 Some Related Applications

• Pandora

• Netflix

• Google YouTube

@[Link] 17
 Pandora music recommendation service
How It Works:
• Base its recommendation on data from
Music Genome Project
• Assigns 400 attributes for each song, done
by musicians, takes half an hour per song
• Use this method to find songs which is
similar to user’s favorite songs

Benefits:
• Accurate method, don’t need lots of users information, needs little to get started

Drawback:
• Doesn't scale very well and often feels that Pandora's library is somewhat limited

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 18

 Netflix movie recommendation system
What’s it
• Make recommendations by comparing the
watching and the searching habits of similar
users as well as by offering movies that share
characteristics with films that a user has rated
highly
• Collaborative, content-based, knowledge-
based, and demographic techniques serves
as the basis of its recommendation system.
An ensemble method of 107 different
algorithmic approaches, blended into a single
prediction

Benefit:
• Each of these techniques has known shortcomings, using multiple techniques
together achieves some synergy between them.

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 19

 Google YouTube recommendation system
Why:
• Focus on videos, bring videos to users
which they believe users will be interest in
• Increase the numbers of videos, increase
the length of time, and maximize the
enjoyment
• Ultimately google can increase revenue by
showing more ads

Interesting things:
•Give up its old recommendation system based on random walk, changed to a new
one based on Amazon’s item-to-item collaborative filtering in 2010
•Amazon’s item-to-item collaborative filtering appears to be the best for video
recommendation

@[Link] Picture from: [Link] 20

 References:
1. Linden, G.; Smith, B.; York, J.; , "[Link] recommendations: item-to-item
collaborative filtering,". Internet Computing, IEEE , vol.7, no.1, pp. 76- 80, Jan/Feb
2003
2. Takács, G.; Pilászy, I.; Németh, B.; Tikk, D. (March 2009). "Scalable Collaborative
Filtering Approaches for Large Recommender Systems". Journal of Machine Learning
Research 10: 623-656
3. Candillier, L., Meyer, F., & Boull'e Marc. (2007). Comparing state-of-the-art
collaborative filtering systems. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition, Leipzig, Germany. 548-
562. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73499-4_41
4. Ala Alluhaidan, Ala, "Recommender System Using Collaborative Filtering Algorithm"
(2013). Technical Library. Paper 155. [Link]
5. Francesco Ricci, Slides on "Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering and Matrix
Factorization".
[Link]
[Link]
6. Xavier Amatriain, Bamshad Mobasher; KDD 2014 Tutorial - the recommender
problem revisited. [Link]

@[Link] 21
Web Mining, CS 548

Questions and Comments?

22
Web Mining, CS 548

Thank You

23