skip to main content
10.1145/2063576.2063684acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Diversification and refinement in collaborative filtering recommender

Published:24 October 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper considers a popular class of recommender systems that are based on Collaborative Filtering (CF) and proposes a novel technique for diversifying the recommendations that they give to users. Items are clustered based on a unique notion of priority-medoids that provides a natural balance between the need to present highly ranked items vs. highly diverse ones. Our solution estimates items diversity by comparing the rankings that different users gave to the items, thereby enabling diversification even in common scenarios where no semantic information on the items is available. It also provides a natural zoom-in mechanism to focus on items (clusters) of interest and recommending diversified similar items. We present DiRec a plug-in that implements the above concepts and allows CF Recommender systems to diversify their recommendations. We illustrate the operation of DiRec in the context of a movie recommendation system and present a thorough experimental study that demonstrates the effectiveness of our recommendation diversification technique and its superiority over previous solutions.

References

  1. Imdb interface. http://www.imdb.com/interfaces/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin. Towards the next generation of recommender systems. IEEE TKDE, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Bennet and S. Lanning. The netflix prize. KDD Cup, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Beygelzimer, S. Kakade, and J. Langford. Cover trees for nearest neighbor. ICML, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Boim, H. Kaplan, T. Milo, and R. Rubinfeld. Improved recommendations via (more) collaboration. WebDB, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Boim, T. Milo, and S. Novgorodov. Diversification and refinement in collaborative filtering recommender (full version). http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/boim/publications/cikm11-full.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Boim, T. Milo, and S. Novgorodov. Direc: Diversified recommendations for semantic-less collaborative filtering. ICDE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Z. Chen and T. Li. Addressing diverse user preferences in sql-query-result navigation. SIGMOD, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Drosou and E. Pitoura. Search result diversification. SIGMOD Record, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Gollapudi and A. Sharma. An axiomatic approach for result diversification. WWW, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. Kaufman and P. Rousseeuw. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley's Series in Probability and Statistics, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. B. Liu and H. Jagadish. Using trees to depict a forest. VLDB, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. L. Rodgers and W. A. Nicewander. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J. Stoyanovich, S. Amer-Yahia, and T. Milo. Making interval-based clustering rank-aware. to appear in EDBT, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. X. Su and T. Khoshgoftaar. A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Yu, L. Lakshmanan, and S. Amer-Yahia. It takes variety to make a world: Diversification in recommender systems. EDBT, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Yu, L. Lakshmanan, and S. Amer-Yahia. Recommendation diversification using explanations. ICDE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Zhang and N. Hurley. Avoiding monotony: Improving the diversity of recommendation lists. RecSys, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Zhang and N. Hurley. Evaluating the diversity of top-n recommendations. ICTAI, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C.-N. Ziegler, S. M. McNee, J. A. Konstan, and G. Lausen. Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. WWW, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Diversification and refinement in collaborative filtering recommender

    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 Conferences
      CIKM '11: Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
      October 2011
      2712 pages
      ISBN:9781450307178
      DOI:10.1145/2063576

      Copyright © 2011 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

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 October 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader