1 / 44

Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

Hybrid Web Recommender Systems. Robin Burke Presentation by Jae-wook Ahn 10/04/05. References. Entrée system & dataset Burke, R. (2002). Semantic ratings and heuristic similarity for collaborative filtering. AAAI Workshop on Knowledge-based Electronic Markets 2000 .

kendra
Download Presentation

Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Hybrid Web Recommender Systems Robin Burke Presentation by Jae-wook Ahn 10/04/05

  2. References • Entrée system & dataset • Burke, R. (2002). Semantic ratings and heuristic similarity for collaborative filtering. AAAI Workshop on Knowledge-based Electronic Markets 2000. • Feature augmentation, mixed hybrid example • Torres, R., McNee, S., Abel, M., Konstan J., & Riedl J. (2004). Enhancing Digital Libraries with TechLens+. Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on Digital Libraries. • Hybrid recommender system UI issue • Schafer, J. (2005). DynamicLens: A Dynamic User-Interface for a Meta-Recommendation System. Workshop: Beyond Personalization 2005, IUI’05. • Collaborative filtering algorithm • Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., & Riedl, J. (2001). Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web. Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  3. Concepts and Techniques

  4. Hybrid Recommender Systems • Mix of recommender systems • Recommender system classification – knowledge source • Collaborative (CF) • User’s ratings “only” • Content-based (CN) • Product features, user’s ratings • Classifications of user’s likes/dislikes • Demographic • User’s ratings, user’s demographics • Knowledge-based (KB) • Domain knowledge, product features, user’s need/query • Inferences about a use’s needs and preferences Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  5. CF vs. CN • User-based CF • Searches for similar users in user-item “rating” matrix • Item-based CF • Searches for similar items in user-item “rating” matrix • CN • Searches for similar items in item-feature matrix • Example – TF*IDF term weight vector for news recommendation Items Ratings Users Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  6. Recommender System Problems • Cold-start problem • Learning based techniques • Collaborative, content-based, demographic  Hybrid techniques • Stability vs. plasticity problem • Difficulty to change established user’s profile • Temporal discount – older rating with less influence • KB – fewer cold start problem (no need of historical data) • CF/Demographic – cross-genre niches, jump outside of the familiar (novelty, serendipity) Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  7. Strategies for Hybrid Recommendation • Combination of multiple recommendation techniques together for producing output • Different techniques of different types • Most common implementations • Most promise to resolve cold-start problem • Different techniques of the same type • Ex) NewsDude – naïve Bayes + kNN Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  8. Seven Types of Recommender Systems • Taxonomy by Burke (2002) • Weighted • Switching • Mixed • Feature combination • Feature augmentation • Cascade • Meta-level Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  9. Weighted Hybrid • Concept • Each component of the hybrid scores a given item and the scores are combined using a linear formula • When recommenders have consistent relative accuracy across the product space • Uniform performance among recommenders (otherwise  other hybrids) Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  10. Weighted Hybrid Procedure • Training • Joint rating • Intersection – candidates shared between the candidates • Union – case with no possible rating  neutral score (neither liked nor disliked) • Linear combination Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  11. Mixed Hybrid • Concepts • Presentation of different components side-by-side in a combined list • If lists are to be combined, how are rankings to be integrated? • Merging based on predicted rating or on recommender confidence • Not fit with retrospective data • Cannot use actual ratings to test if right items ranked highly • Example • CF_rank(3) + CN_rank(2)  Mixed_rank(5) Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  12. Mixed Hybrid Procedure • Candidate generation • Multiple ranked lists • Combined display Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  13. Switching Hybrid • Concepts • Selects a single recommender among components based on recommendation situation • Different profile different recommendation • Components with different performance for some types of users • Existence of criterion for switching decision • Ex) confidence value, external criteria Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  14. Switching Hybrid Procedure • Switching decision • Candidate generation • Scoring • No role for unchosen recommender Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  15. Feature Combination Hybrid • Concepts • Inject features of one source into a different source for processing different data • Features of “contributing recommender” are used as a part of the “actual recommender” • Adding new features into the mix • Not combining components, just combining knowledge source Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  16. Feature Combination Hybrid Procedure • Feature combination  In training stage • Candidate generation • Scoring Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  17. Feature Augmentation Hybrid • Concepts • Similar to Feature Combination • Generates new features for each item by contributing domain • Augmentation/combination – done offline • Comparison with Feature Combination • Not raw features (FC), but the result of computation from contribution (FA) • More flexible to apply • Adds smaller dimension Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  18. Feature Augmentation Hybrid Procedure Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  19. Cascade Hybrid • Concepts • Tie breaker • Secondary recommender • Just tie breaker • Do refinements • Primary recommender • Integer-valued scores – higher probability for ties • Real-valued scores – low probability for ties • Precision reduction • Score: 0.8348694  0.83 Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  20. Cascade Hybrid Procedure • Procedure • Primary recommender • Ranks • Break ties by secondary recommender Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  21. Meta-level Hybrid • Concepts • A model learned by contributing recommender  input for actual recommender • Contributing recommender completely replaces the original knowledge source with a learned model • Not all recommenders can produce the intermediary model Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  22. Meta-level Hybrid Procedure • Procedure • Contributing recommender  Learned model • Knowledge Source Replacement • Actual Recommender Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  23. Experiments

  24. Testbed – Entrée Restaurant Recommender • Entrée System • Case-based reasoning • Interactive critiquing dialog • Ex) Entry Candidates  “Cheaper”  Candidates  “Nicer”  Candidates  Exit • Not “narrowing” the search by adding constrains, but changing the focus in the feature space Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  25. Testbed – Entrée Restaurant Recommender (cont’d) • Entrée Dataset • Rating • Entry, ending point – “positive” rating • Critiques – “negative” rating • Mostly negative ratings • Validity test for positive ending point assumption – strong correlation between original vs. modified (entry points with positive ratings) • Small in size Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  26. Evaluation Methodology • Measures • ARC (Average Rank of the Correct recommendations) • Accuracy of retrieval • At different size retrieval set • Fraction of the candidate set (0 ~ 1.0) • Training & Test set • 5 fold cross validation – random partition of training/test set • “Leave one out” methodology – randomly remove one item and check whether the system can recommend it • Sessions Sizes • Single visit profiles – 5S, 10S, 15S • Multiple visit profiles – 10M, 20M, 30M Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  27. Baseline Algorithms • Collaborative Pearson (CFP) • Pearson’s correlation coefficient for similarity • Collaborative Heuristic (CFH) • Heuristics for calculating distances between critiques • “nicer” and “cheaper”  dissimilar • “nicer” & “quieter”  similar • Content-based (CN) • Naïve Bayes algorithm – compute probability that a item is “liked” / “disliked” • Too few “liked” items  modified candidate generation • Retrieve items with common features with the “liked” vector of the naïve Bayes profile • Knowledge-based (KB) • Knowledge-based comparison metrics of Entrée • Nationality, price, atmosphere, etc. Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  28. Baseline Evaluations • Techniques vary in performance on the Entrée data • Content-based(CN) – weak • Knowledge-based (KB) – better on single-session than multi-session • Heuristic collaborative (CFH) – better than correlation-based (CFP) for short profiles • Room for improvement • Multi-session profiles Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  29. Baseline Evaluations Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  30. Hybrid Comparative Study • Missing components • Mixed hybrid • Not possible with retrospective data • Demographic recommender • No demographic data Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  31. Results – Weighted • Hybrid performance better in only 10 of 30 • CN/CFP – consistent synergy (5 of 6) • Lacks uniform performance • KB, CFH • Linear weighting scheme assumption – fault Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  32. Results – Switching • KB hybrids – best switching hybrids Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  33. Results – Feature Combination • CN/CFH, CN/CFP • Contributing CN • Identical to CFH, CFP • CFH maintains accuracy with reduced dataset • CF/CN Winnow – modest improvement Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  34. Results – Feature Augmentation • Best performance so far • Particularly CN*/CF* • Good for multi-session profiles Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  35. Results – Cascade • CFP/KB, CFP/CN • Great improvement • Also good for multi-profile sessions Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  36. Results – Meta-level Hybrids • CN/CF, CN/KB, CF/KB, CF/CN • Not effective • No synergy • Weakness of KB/CN in Entrée dataset • Both components should be strong Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  37. Discussion • Dominance of the hybrids over basic recommenders • Synergy was found under • Smaller profile size • Sparse recommendation density •  hybridization conquers cold start problem Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  38. Discussion (cont’d) • Best hybrids • Feature augmentation, cascade • FA allows a contributing recommender to make a positive impact • without interfering with the performance of the better algorithm Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  39. Conclusions • Knowledge-based recommendation is not limited • Numerously combined to build hybrids • Good for secondary or contributing components • Cascade hybrids are effective • Though rare in literatures • Effective for combining recommender with different strengths • Different performance characteristics • Six hybridization techniques • Relative accuracy & consistency of hybrid components Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  40. System Example & Related Issues

  41. System Example – TechLens+ • Hybrid recommender system • Recommenders – CF, CN • Hybrid algorithms – CF/CN FA, CN/CF FA, Fusion (Mixed) • Corpus • CiteSeer • Title, abstract (CN), citations (CF) • Methodology • Offline experiment, Online user study with questionnaire (by asking satisfaction on the recommendation) • Results • Fusion was the best • Some FA were not good due the their sequential natures • Different algorithms should be used for recommending different papers • Users with different levels of experiences perceive recommendations differently Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  42. Meta-recommender – DynamicLens • Can user provided information improve hybrid recommender system output? • Meta-recommender • Provide users with personalized control over the generation of a recommendation list from hybrid recommender system • MetaLens • IF (Information Filtering), CF Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  43. Meta-recommender – DynamicLens (cont’d) • Dynamic query • Merges preference & recommendation interfaces • Immediate feedback • Discover why a given set of ranking recommendations were made Hybrid Web Recommender Systems

  44. Questions & Comments

More Related