Bayesian Personalized Ranking for Las Vegas Restaurant Recommendation


 Anastasia Richards
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Bayesian Personalized Ranking for Las Vegas Restaurant Recommendation Kiran Kannar A Saicharan Duppati A Akanksha Grover A Abstract Item recommendation is a challenging task of predicting a personalized ranking for a set of items for each user. In this project, we build a collaborative filtering model BPRMF based on a Bayesian analysis of the problem, to generate a total order of the personalized ranking for all restaurants, which can be used to recommend the next top restaurant for each user. The learning method is based on stochastic gradient descent with bootstrap sampling. We compare our primary model with other collaborative filtering methods like memorybased collaborative filtering and matrix factorization with SVD. We see that BPRMF is indeed a stateofart method for personalized recommendation, outperforming other models based on the AUC evaluation criterion. 1 Introduction An important aspect of item recommendation is making the recommendation on a set of items personalized i.e. specific to each user, based on his historical data. For example, Amazon may recommend specific movies based on what genre of movies one has watched before. This kind of personalized recommendation usually involves some kind of ranking of items specific to each user. Better, relevant recommendation increases engagement of users with the recommender system. Collaborative filtering is a commonly used recommendation technique; it involves making predictions per user or item based on collective preferences across all users or items. The idea is to exploit the similarity between users or items, or even useritem compatibility to make recommendations In this project, we aim at recommending the next best restaurant in Las Vegas to a user based on the restaurants he/she has already visited. A standard matrix factorization model would then involve building the latent factor representations for both users and restaurants based on review history of the restaurants in Las Vegas and that of the users. Our dataset is derived from the huge corpus provided by Yelp as a part of the Round 9 of their Dataset challenge [1]. We build a recommender system that uses a Bayesian analysis of the problem to derive its optimization criterion, and therefore termed Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR). This model is based on implicit feedback i.e. no specific feature (like rating) is required for ranking. The algorithm considers all of the observed implicit data as positive feedback and tries to differentiate it with large set of remaining items which is either negative feedback or missing values that will be obtained in future. In our case, all the restaurants the user visits fall under positive feedback and the restaurants he/she doesn t go to are a part of the other larger set. The algorithm produces a pairwise ordering for all userrestaurant pairs. We can use these pairwise ordering to find a total ordering of the ranking of restaurants for each user, which serves the purpose of personalizaed recommendation. In this report, we first discuss our findings from dataset exploratory analysis. We choose to provide personalized recommendations for restaurants in Las Vegas. The predictive task is described further along with the AUC evaluation criteria, which will be our method of evaluation of recommendations
2 across the models we implemented. We then compare this model with various models for personalized ranking, which involve the use of explicit feedback, in terms of ratings. We report the results of our experiments which indicate that the BPR with Matrix Factorization and regularization (BPRMFreg) is a superior algorithm for the task of personalized ranking as compared to all other models. 2 Related Work Matrix Factorization (MF) has become very popular in recommender systems, and it has been widely used in systems which accept implicit or explicit feedback. It finds the latent factor representations for users and restaurants which can be used in the service of the task.[3]. This project s main model is based on the generic learning algorithm proposed by Rendle et.al in [1], which uses a generic optimization criterion called BPR_Opt for personalized ranking. BPR measures the difference between the personalized rankings of the restaurants a user has visited and the rest of the restaurants. From our experimentation, we have seen similar results to what the paper authors observed with their datasets. The authors used two datasets, Rossman dataset having buying history of 10,000 users on 400 items, and the Netflix DVD rental dataset with 10,000 users and 5000 items. Our Las Vegas dataset has 11,264 users and 5431 restaurants. The subsamples specific to Las Vegas restaurants have been derived from the Yelp s dataset available as a part of Round 9 of their Dataset Challenge [1]. The dataset is bigger with more user ratings and more restaurants, in comparison to the dataset available in previous rounds. It was not possible to find any recent work on the round 9 dataset, as the challenge is expected to end in June However, in terms of related work, the Yelp datasets in general have been experimented with several learning model techniques from SVMs to collaborative filtering, especially for rating prediction. The combination of BPR and MF has also been used in recent works. In [4], He et.al. incorporate visual signals into BPRMF for considering the visual appearance of the items for recommendation. In [5], Weike Pan and Li Chen extend the BPRMF algorithm for incorporating group preferences. Additionally, there are other collaborative filtering models like the weighted Regularized Matrix factorization model (WRMF) by Hu et.al. [3] and Pan et.al [7] which add weights to the error function to increase the impact of positive feedback. They also use regularization to control overfitting. However, we limit to using individual preferences and then comparing with other models, which include standard collaborative filtering techniques like matrix factorization and memorybased collaborative filtering using cosine similarity. 3 Dataset exploration The Yelp dataset from Yelp s website has data across 144,072 businesses of which around 48,485 are restaurants. We want to predict the next best restaurant each user would want to visit, by ranking the restaurants the user has not been to. The dataset available is distributed across different files each for user reviews, checkin s, user tip and files with data about user profiles and restaurant profiles. For the purpose of this project, we have only retained two files that pertain to user reviews and restaurant data. From all Yelp businesses, we first filtered out the restaurants and plotted the locations of them on Google Maps using gmplot in Figure 1. This showed us that the data we have is from approximately 10 cities across US (including Las Vegas, Phoenix, Pennsylvania etc.), Canada and Europe. For all the restaurants, we have a total of 2,577,298 reviews given by 7,21,779 users. Figure 1: Heat Map of the Restaurants in Yelp DataSet (in and around US) 2
3 As a next step, we built dictionary data structures to store all the restaurants that each user u reviewed (I u ) and all the users that reviewed a given restaurant (U i ). We plotted the lengths of items of these dictionaries, as a histogram. These histograms show the distribution of the number of the ratings across users 2 and the number of ratings received across restaurants 3. We included only the users and restaurants with at least 10 reviews. For better visibility, the plots have 99% of data. Figure 2: Number of Yelp Restaurants over number of ratings it received Figure 3: Number of Yelp users over number of ratings they have given Then, we calculated the average ratings userwise and restaurantwise., i.e the average rating a user tends to give across restaurants he/she reviewed (in figure 5) and the average rating a restaurant received across all users that reviewed it (in figure 4). Figure 4: Average Restaurant Ratings Figure 5: Average Users Ratings Seeing the immensity of the number of restaurants and reviews we had from the data exploration, we decided to focus and build a model for a specific city like Las Vegas. Apart from the scale of managing a model with extremely high number of useritem pairs leading us to make this decision, we found it fun and exciting to predict restaurants in Las Vegas! What happened in Las Vegas, we know it. What will happen next, we shall know it too! Thereafter, we proceeded to obtain a geographical view of all Vegas Restaurants in our data set. Figure 6is the rating distribution of the restaurants in Vegas. We also plotted the histograms for number of ratings given by users and obtained by restaurants specific to Vegas, and also the histograms for Average userwise and restaurantwise ratings. The plots have users/restaurants with at least 10 reviews and for visibility, we plotted 99% of data. Below are the plots in figures 7, 8, 9 and 10. 3
4 Figure 6: Map of Las Vegas Restaurants by Rankings Figure 7: Number of Yelp Vegas Restaurants over number of ratings it received Figure 8: Number of Yelp User over number of ratings given Figure 9: Average Vegas Restaurant Ratings Figure 10: Average Vegas Users Ratings 4
5 3.1 Key observations From the plots we observe the following points: Most restaurants have review ratings and very few have up to 2000 reviews. Most users reviewed restaurants and very few reviewed up to 200 restaurants Most restaurants received an average rating between 3.5 and 4 from all users who reviewed them and very few received 1 or 5 average rating. Most users gave an average rating between 3.5 and 4 across all restaurants they reviewed. Very few had average ratings of 1 and 5. After this, we used our Vegas data set to predict rankings of Vegas restaurants. Below are few statistics of our data: Table 1: Statistics of our Vegas Data Set Statistic Value Number of Restaurants 5431 Number of Users 11,264 Total Number of data points 61,174,784 Total Number of Ratings 7,61,678 For all the models described in this paper, we assume that if the user has reviewed a restaurant, it implies that the user has visited the restaurant. We also only considered those users which have reviewed/visited at least 10 restaurants. Since our BPR model uses implicit feedback, we didn t use any features but geographical distributions and setting thresholds for including users and restaurants really helped us to come to a set of data points which we had the computational power to work and predict on. For all other models that we built as baselines, described in this paper, we used ratings as the explicit feedback. 4 Predictive task and Model Evaluation criteria As defined previously, our prediction task is to determine the next best restaurant for each user or a ranking of restaurants for each user. Unlike regular prediction tasks, our pairwise algorithm will try to separate out the known data (which is already available) and the remaining unobserved data. In the case of explicit feedback, the task is relatively easier since we already have both the positive and negative data. In our case of implicit feedback, we will consider the observed data(restaurant s the user visited) as positive feedback, while the unobserved data(restaurant s the user didn t visit) could be either negative feedback or the data that will be available in future. We provide a recommendation by building a total order that ranks all the items for each user. This can be formed by considering pairwise ordering of items for each user. We borrow notations from [2] as we describe the total order (i.e ranking). Let U be the set of users and I be the set of all restaurants. Each user has been to a subset of these restaurants, and therefore the observed data S U I. The personalized total ranking > u I 2 of all items should satisfy the properties of antisymmetry, totality and transitivity so that a total ranking can be formed from individual pair orders. We define the two sets I u = {i I : (u, i) S} and U i = {u U : (u, i) S} to be the sets of restaurants reviewed by each user, and the sets of users who reviewed each restaurant respectively. Since our model looks at both the observed data and unobserved data, we can create the training data D s = {(u, i, j) i I u j I \ I u } which is the set of triples for each user conjoined with a restaurant he has reviewed and a restaurant he has not. By training on such users, we can make the model learn that the user prefers restaurant i over j, thereby incorporating the antisymmetry. The actual training data is a subset of Ds, as we use the leave one out evaluation scheme for testing. For every user, we remove one (u, i) and keep in S test. The remaining observed data becomes S train. Our evaluation criteria uses AUC (area under the curve) metric over the test set S test. 5
6 The AUC is a measure of ranking quality. It specifies the probability that the predicted pairwise ranking is correct when we draw out two items at random. It can also be defined as the expectation that a uniformly draw positive sample is ranked before a uniformly drawn negative sample. The average AUC statistic can be calculated as: AUC = 1 1 U E(u) where the evaluation pairs per user u are: u (i,j) E(u) δ(x ui > x uj ) E(u) = {(i, j) (u, i) S test (u, j) / (S test S train )} x ui and x uj are the values predicted by the standard collaborative filtering models like matrix factorization or memorybased collaborative filtering. δ function counts the pass of the evaluation criterion within it as 1, else it has the value 0. Our main model is Bayesian Personalized Ranking model(bprmf) and we used a number of baseline models like Most popular, Memorybased collaborative filtering (using cosine similarity), Matrix Factorization, which are explained in detail in the next section. We chose the BPRMF model because we believe that the type of task we are optimizing will give the best predictions if we create a personalized ranking for each user that is based on a pair of items. BPRMF is the stateoftheart model available for this. The models are discussed in detail below, and the ensuing section discusses the results 5 Models For every model we experimented with, we explain in detail any preprocessing we performed specific to each model. Else, we used the standard leave oneout evaluation method to construct S train and S test for training and AUC evaluation. The strengths and weaknesses of each model are discussed in the results section. 5.1 Baseline Model 1  Most Popular (MP) This is the simplest baseline that is userindependent. For each restaurant, it assigns a common value across all users. We have chosen the mostpopular value, which simply is the number of users who have reviewed/visited the restaurant. x most pop ui = U i x ui and x uj are calculated for all pairs of (i,j) for different users and the AUC is evaluated. This model is computationally simple, but also extremely naive in its assumptions. 5.2 Baseline Model 2  Memorybased Collaborative Filtering(Using Cosine Similarity) This approach uses the entire training data, and not a subsample as we will see in BPR. In this approach, we want to extract the similarities between restaurants and predict the ratings for each user according to that. We first construct the matrix M of size R U where R and U are the set of the restaurants and number of users respectively. Next, we initialize each value of M with the explicit feedback ie., if user u reviewed the restaurant r then M[u, r] = rating(u, r) else we equate it to zero. Let M R be the column corresponding to restaurant R obtained by removing the mean across each dimension for normalization. We then construct the similarity matrix S R where S R i,j = (M R i )T (M R j ) M R i M R j To make a prediction, we need to calculate x uij which can be calculated in terms of r u,i and r u,j) For evaluation, we say the user u prefers restaurant i to restaurant j if r u,i > r u,j. The rating can be 6
7 calculated as: r u,k = M[u, z] M[u,z] 0 SR kz M[u,z] 0 SR kz 5.3 Baseline Model 3  Matrix Factorization In the matrix factorization model, we predicted user rankings by learning the latent factors γ u, γ r for users and restaurants respectively from ratings, which is an explicit feedback. The loss function we minimize in this model is L = (rating(u, r) γ u.γ r ) 2 + λ u,r u γ u 2 + λ r γ r 2 Where the sum is taken over all (u,r) if the user u has reviewed restaurant r Differentiating above equation for loss L w.r.t to γ u and γ r and equating them to 0 gives the below closed form solutions γ u = γ r = r γ r rating(u, r) λ + r γ r 2 u γ u rating(u, r) λ + u γ u 2 By iterative updating the γ u and γ r by above equations for a few iterations ( 2050) will give a stable loss value L In the evaluation of AUC and for further analysis, we say the user u prefers restaurant i to restaurant j if γ u.γ i > γ u.γ j We repeated the iterations for different values of K(rank of γ u and γ r ) and calculated AUC for all values. 5.4 Bayesian Personalized Ranking model The BPR model is a pairwise ranking framework which uses Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) for training. Following the notation from [2], it derives the BPR optimization criterion by using the maximum likelihood estimate for P (i > u j Θ). This criterion (BPROPT) is as follows: (u,i,j) D s ln σ(x uij ) λ Θ Θ 2 where x uij is value captured by our pairwise learning algorithm based on the parameter Θ. x uij = x ui x uj and the parameter Θ is the latent representation of each user and restaurant, and λ Θ is the regularization parameter. We have chosen the same regularization parameter for all users and restaurants. BPRMF learns the model parameter Θ using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD). It is infeasible to use batch gradient descent since we have a extremely huge set of triples to consider. Therefore, in each iteration, we randomly sample a (u, i) S train and find a j from the restaurants the user has not visited, to construct the triple (u, i, j). The learning rule in BPRMF is: ( Θ := Θ + η σ( x uij ). x uij Θ ) + λ ΘΘ The hyperparameters that we choose were λ Θ = and η = We tried out a number of different values for each of these parameters and choose the above best values. In the evaluation of AUC and for further analysis, we say the user u prefers restaurant i to restaurant j if x ui > x uj We repeated the iterations for different values of K and calculated AUC for all values. 7
8 6 Challenges and optimization techniques In this section we present the challenges we faced, as well as the optimizations we performed in our models. The dataset has a huge collection of business across may cities. To scale down the data, while still retaining the sufficient problem we have chosen only the restaurant data in Las Vegas and filtered users and reviews pertaining to these restaurants The filtered data still has lots of users who have rated very less number of restaurants and this data can be problematic as it can cause coldstart issues for new users. Therefore we have retained only those users who have reviewed more than or equal to 10 restaurants in Las Vegas. This kind of data preprocessing has been done before (Liu et.al) [6] In the memorybased collaborative filtering model, we have set the missing values in the matrix to be 0. This does not mean the user gave a rating of 0. Rather, Yelp s minimum rating is 1.0. Hence the value 0 can be used to indicate that the particular observation pair is missing. This is useful in fast processing of the similarity matrix with respect to the original rating matrix, to calculate the value of r u,k We performed the above experimentations for different values of K which is the latent factor representation size of each user and restaurant. We then computed the average AUC statistic and obtained the AUC curve for each model. To speed up the computations, we digress from bootstrap sampling with replacement method by precomputing five million samples, each of which is picked in order for the first five million iterations of SGD. After these iterations are completed, we randomly pick a sample from the generated five million samples. In fact, Rendle et.al in [8] state that uniform sampling can lead to slow convergence. Our sampling technique is uniform over the set of precomputation values, but not uniform over the entire set of iterations. The BPR model which is our primary model, requires a huge number of iterations of the order O(10 9 ) to actually result in predictions with high AUC. Therefore, instead of letting the stochastic gradient descent run all the way until convergence, we have restricted the number of iterations to 10 8 to generate results of all BPR instances. We still received considerably high results, though convergence would lead to even higher results. Also, due to this early stopping, we did not overfit our model. Use of regularization in all the matrix factorization models also prevented overfitting. 7 Results and discussion We compared the AUC metric of each baseline to our main BPRMF model and we assessed the validity of our model by showing that its AUC is higher as compared to all the baselines. A trivial predictor would have an AUC value of 0.5 since its prediction is random. We do not show this in the below AUC curve, but we definitely perform better than a trivial predictor. The other models for which we plotted the AUC curve with varying values of K are: 1. Mostpopular model (Most Popular) 2. Memorybased collaborative filtering (MCF) 3. Matrix factorization (MF) 4. BPRMF with no regularization (BPRMFNoreg) 5. BPRMF with regularization (BPRMFReg) The parameter tuning is decribed for each model in the model section. To summarize, Cosine similarity based MCF model required no hyperparameter tuning since it is not a learning model, rather a memorybased model.the λ Θ value is for BPRMFReg, along with a small learning rate of 10 4 With a higher regularization parameter value (eg: ), we found that our BPRMF model has an increase in loss. Therefore, the best value of regularization parameter is a very small value. 8
9 The results are shown in the AUC curve plotted in figure 11 Figure 11: AUC curve The AUC value would not change for the trivial predictor, the mostpopular predictor and the MCF model, since they have no dependency on the latent factor size K. However, we see that in the simple matrix factorization, the AUC decreases with an increase in K. This is consistent with the results obtained in [2], as it is stated that matrix factorization with SVD is prone to overfitting. We see that the increase in K improves the values of the AUC for both the BPRMF variants. But a more prominent observation is the sharp increase in the AUC and then a stagnation. This means that increasing K will not increase AUC indefinitely and also very high values of K will not help in improving model s recommendation either. This is consistent with the characteristics of each model. The Mostpopular model is computationally simple and quick, but is a very naive model, and therefore has the least AUC. However, it is still a better model than a trivial predictor with AUC of 0.5. The cosine similarity based MCF model looks at correlations between restaurants. This model is very intuitive in terms of the similarity measurements. However, it is computationally expensive, especially when we are dealing with sparse data sets. It also requires the entire training data to exist in the memory. Also, memorybased algorithms do not generalize well, subject to high variation in user data. The Matrix factorization based approach is faster in terms of number of iterations to converge, but a SVDMF model as we saw above is prone to overfitting. The best model is the BPRMF model along with some small regularization. However, as we observed, it takes too long for convergence owing to the stochastic gradient descent algorithm for parameter updates. 7.1 Conclusion In this project, we have implemented the BPRMF model using SGD to recommend restaurants to users in Las Vegas. This model uses a maximum posterior estimator derived from Bayesian analysis as its optimization criterion. We used AUC as our evaluation criteria. We demonstrated that this model is superior to other models, which include assigning the mostpopular baseline, finding itemitem similarity in a memorybased model, and SVDbased matrix factorization. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Professor Mcauley as he introduced us to the above model of BPRMF when we explained our idea to him. He suggested us to read [2] which really helped us in formulating the model and coming up with great results. We thank him for his guidance and valuable suggestions. 9
10 References [1] Round 9  Yelp Dataset Challenge, [2] Steffen Rendle et.al., BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback, CoRR, 2012, [3] Yifan Hu, Yehuda Koren, Chris Volinsky, "Collaborative Filtering for Implicit Feedback Datasets," 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Pisa, 2008, pp doi: /ICDM [4] Ruining He, Julian McAuley VBPR: visual Bayesian Personalized Ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 16). AAAI Press [5] Weike Pan, Li Chen GBPR: group preference based Bayesian personalized ranking for oneclass collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the TwentyThird international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 13), Francesca Rossi (Ed.). AAAI Press [6] Yang Liu, Xiangji Huang, Aijun An, and Xiaohui Yu Modeling and Predicting the Helpfulness of Online Reviews. In Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 08). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, http: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber= [7] Pan R., et.al., Oneclass collaborative filtering. In Data Mining, ICDM 08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on, IEEE panoneclasscf.pdf [8] Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler Improving pairwise learning for item recommendation from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (WSDM 14). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback
452 RENDLE ET AL. UAI 2009 BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner and Lars SchmidtThieme {srendle, freudenthaler, gantner, schmidtthieme}@ismll.de
More informationStable Matrix Approximation for TopN Recommendation on Implicit Feedback Data
Proceedings of the 51 st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2018 Stable Matrix Approximation for TopN Recommendation on Implicit Feedback Data Dongsheng Li, Changyu Miao, Stephen M. Chu
More informationMatrix Cofactorization for Recommendation with Rich Side Information and Implicit Feedback
Matrix Cofactorization for Recommendation with Rich Side Information and Implicit Feedback ABSTRACT Yi Fang Department of Computer Science Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA fangy@cs.purdue.edu
More informationPerformance Comparison of Algorithms for Movie Rating Estimation
Performance Comparison of Algorithms for Movie Rating Estimation Alper Köse, Can Kanbak, Noyan Evirgen Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Electrical
More informationNLMF: NonLinear Matrix Factorization Methods for TopN Recommender Systems
1 NLMF: NonLinear Matrix Factorization Methods for TopN Recommender Systems Santosh Kabbur and George Karypis Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, USA {skabbur,karypis}@cs.umn.edu
More informationCS246: Mining Massive Datasets Jure Leskovec, Stanford University
CS6: Mining Massive Datasets Jure Leskovec, Stanford University http://cs6.stanford.edu Training data 00 million ratings, 80,000 users, 7,770 movies 6 years of data: 000 00 Test data Last few ratings of
More informationCS249: ADVANCED DATA MINING
CS249: ADVANCED DATA MINING Recommender Systems II Instructor: Yizhou Sun yzsun@cs.ucla.edu May 31, 2017 Recommender Systems Recommendation via Information Network Analysis Hybrid Collaborative Filtering
More informationUse of KNN for the Netflix Prize Ted Hong, Dimitris Tsamis Stanford University
Use of KNN for the Netflix Prize Ted Hong, Dimitris Tsamis Stanford University {tedhong, dtsamis}@stanford.edu Abstract This paper analyzes the performance of various KNNs techniques as applied to the
More informationReddit Recommendation System Daniel Poon, Yu Wu, David (Qifan) Zhang CS229, Stanford University December 11 th, 2011
Reddit Recommendation System Daniel Poon, Yu Wu, David (Qifan) Zhang CS229, Stanford University December 11 th, 2011 1. Introduction Reddit is one of the most popular online social news websites with millions
More informationPerceptron: This is convolution!
Perceptron: This is convolution! v v v Shared weights v Filter = local perceptron. Also called kernel. By pooling responses at different locations, we gain robustness to the exact spatial location of image
More informationCS 179 Lecture 16. Logistic Regression & Parallel SGD
CS 179 Lecture 16 Logistic Regression & Parallel SGD 1 Outline logistic regression (stochastic) gradient descent parallelizing SGD for neural nets (with emphasis on Google s distributed neural net implementation)
More informationCollaborative Filtering for Netflix
Collaborative Filtering for Netflix Michael Percy Dec 10, 2009 Abstract The Netflix movierecommendation problem was investigated and the incremental Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) algorithm was implemented
More informationCollaborative Filtering using Weighted BiPartite Graph Projection A Recommendation System for Yelp
Collaborative Filtering using Weighted BiPartite Graph Projection A Recommendation System for Yelp Sumedh Sawant sumedh@stanford.edu Team 38 December 10, 2013 Abstract We implement a personal recommendation
More informationMatrix Cofactorization for Recommendation with Rich Side Information HetRec 2011 and Implicit 1 / Feedb 23
Matrix Cofactorization for Recommendation with Rich Side Information and Implicit Feedback Yi Fang and Luo Si Department of Computer Science Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA fangy@cs.purdue.edu
More informationMachine Learning Basics: Stochastic Gradient Descent. Sargur N. Srihari
Machine Learning Basics: Stochastic Gradient Descent Sargur N. srihari@cedar.buffalo.edu 1 Topics 1. Learning Algorithms 2. Capacity, Overfitting and Underfitting 3. Hyperparameters and Validation Sets
More informationSlides based on those in:
Spyros Kontogiannis & Christos Zaroliagis Slides based on those in: http://www.mmds.org A 3.3 B 38.4 C 34.3 D 3.9 E 8.1 F 3.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2 y 0.8 ½+0.2 ⅓ M 1/2 1/2 0 0.8 1/2 0 0 + 0.2 0 1/2 1 [1/N]
More informationLouis Fourrier Fabien Gaie Thomas Rolf
CS 229 Stay Alert! The Ford Challenge Louis Fourrier Fabien Gaie Thomas Rolf Louis Fourrier Fabien Gaie Thomas Rolf 1. Problem description a. Goal Our final project is a recent Kaggle competition submitted
More informationImproving TopN Recommendation with Heterogeneous Loss
Proceedings of the TwentyFifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI16) Improving TopN Recommendation with Heterogeneous Loss Feipeng Zhao and Yuhong Guo Department of Computer
More informationHyperparameter optimization. CS6787 Lecture 6 Fall 2017
Hyperparameter optimization CS6787 Lecture 6 Fall 2017 Review We ve covered many methods Stochastic gradient descent Step size/learning rate, how long to run Minibatching Batch size Momentum Momentum
More informationRating Prediction Using Preference Relations Based Matrix Factorization
Rating Prediction Using Preference Relations Based Matrix Factorization Maunendra Sankar Desarkar and Sudeshna Sarkar Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
More informationCost Functions in Machine Learning
Cost Functions in Machine Learning Kevin Swingler Motivation Given some data that reflects measurements from the environment We want to build a model that reflects certain statistics about that data Something
More informationA Survey on Postive and Unlabelled Learning
A Survey on Postive and Unlabelled Learning Gang Li Computer & Information Sciences University of Delaware ligang@udel.edu Abstract In this paper we survey the main algorithms used in positive and unlabeled
More informationYelp Recommendation System
Yelp Recommendation System Jason Ting, Swaroop Indra Ramaswamy Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering Abstract We apply principles and techniques of recommendation systems to develop
More informationComparison of Recommender System Algorithms focusing on the NewItem and UserBias Problem
Comparison of Recommender System Algorithms focusing on the NewItem and UserBias Problem Stefan Hauger 1, Karen H. L. Tso 2, and Lars SchmidtThieme 2 1 Department of Computer Science, University of
More informationMatrixVector Multiplication by MapReduce. From Rajaraman / Ullman Ch.2 Part 1
MatrixVector Multiplication by MapReduce From Rajaraman / Ullman Ch.2 Part 1 Google implementation of MapReduce created to execute very large matrixvector multiplications When ranking of Web pages that
More informationRecommendation Systems
Recommendation Systems CS 534: Machine Learning Slides adapted from Alex Smola, Jure Leskovec, Anand Rajaraman, Jeff Ullman, Lester Mackey, Dietmar Jannach, and Gerhard Friedrich Recommender Systems (RecSys)
More informationRecommender Systems. Collaborative Filtering & ContentBased Recommending
Recommender Systems Collaborative Filtering & ContentBased Recommending 1 Recommender Systems Systems for recommending items (e.g. books, movies, CD s, web pages, newsgroup messages) to users based on
More informationAccelerometer Gesture Recognition
Accelerometer Gesture Recognition Michael Xie xie@cs.stanford.edu David Pan napdivad@stanford.edu December 12, 2014 Abstract Our goal is to make gesturebased input for smartphones and smartwatches accurate
More informationImproving the Accuracy of TopN Recommendation using a Preference Model
Improving the Accuracy of TopN Recommendation using a Preference Model Jongwuk Lee a, Dongwon Lee b,, YeonChang Lee c, WonSeok Hwang c, SangWook Kim c a Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Republic
More informationThe Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs. Search Personalization with Embeddings
Open Research Online The Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs Search Personalization with Embeddings Conference Item How to cite: Vu, Thanh; Nguyen, Dat Quoc;
More informationMachine Learning Classifiers and Boosting
Machine Learning Classifiers and Boosting Reading Ch 18.618.12, 20.120.3.2 Outline Different types of learning problems Different types of learning algorithms Supervised learning Decision trees Naïve
More informationToday. Gradient descent for minimization of functions of real variables. Multidimensional scaling. Selforganizing maps
Today Gradient descent for minimization of functions of real variables. Multidimensional scaling Selforganizing maps Gradient Descent Derivatives Consider function f(x) : R R. The derivative w.r.t. x
More informationGeneral Instructions. Questions
CS246: Mining Massive Data Sets Winter 2018 Problem Set 2 Due 11:59pm February 8, 2018 Only one late period is allowed for this homework (11:59pm 2/13). General Instructions Submission instructions: These
More informationCS2941 Assignment 2 Report
CS2941 Assignment 2 Report Keling Chen and Huasha Zhao February 24, 2012 1 Introduction The goal of this homework is to predict a users numeric rating for a book from the text of the user s review. The
More informationWeka ( )
Weka ( http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/ ) The phases in which classifier s design can be divided are reflected in WEKA s Explorer structure: Data preprocessing (filtering) and representation Supervised
More informationSupervised Random Walks
Supervised Random Walks Pawan Goyal CSE, IITKGP September 8, 2014 Pawan Goyal (IIT Kharagpur) Supervised Random Walks September 8, 2014 1 / 17 Correlation Discovery by random walk Problem definition Estimate
More informationData Mining Techniques
Data Mining Techniques CS 6  Section  Spring 7 Lecture JanWillem van de Meent (credit: Andrew Ng, Alex Smola, Yehuda Koren, Stanford CS6) Project Project Deadlines Feb: Form teams of  people 7 Feb:
More informationCS249: ADVANCED DATA MINING
CS249: ADVANCED DATA MINING Classification Evaluation and Practical Issues Instructor: Yizhou Sun yzsun@cs.ucla.edu April 24, 2017 Homework 2 out Announcements Due May 3 rd (11:59pm) Course project proposal
More informationECS289: Scalable Machine Learning
ECS289: Scalable Machine Learning ChoJui Hsieh UC Davis Sept 22, 2016 Course Information Website: http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~chohsieh/teaching/ ECS289G_Fall2016/main.html My office: Mathematical Sciences
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.ir] 27 Jun 2016
The Apps You Use Bring The Blogs to Follow arxiv:1606.08406v1 [cs.ir] 27 Jun 2016 ABSTRACT Yue Shi Yahoo! Research Sunnyvale, CA, USA yueshi@acm.org Liang Dong Yahoo! Tumblr New York, NY, USA ldong@tumblr.com
More informationMondrian Forests: Efficient Online Random Forests
Mondrian Forests: Efficient Online Random Forests Balaji Lakshminarayanan Joint work with Daniel M. Roy and Yee Whye Teh 1 Outline Background and Motivation Mondrian Forests Randomization mechanism Online
More informationPersonalized Web Search
Personalized Web Search Dhanraj Mavilodan (dhanrajm@stanford.edu), Kapil Jaisinghani (kjaising@stanford.edu), Radhika Bansal (radhika3@stanford.edu) Abstract: With the increase in the diversity of contents
More informationThe exam is closed book, closed notes except your onepage (twosided) cheat sheet.
CS 189 Spring 2015 Introduction to Machine Learning Final You have 2 hours 50 minutes for the exam. The exam is closed book, closed notes except your onepage (twosided) cheat sheet. No calculators or
More informationPredicting Popular Xbox games based on Search Queries of Users
1 Predicting Popular Xbox games based on Search Queries of Users Chinmoy Mandayam and Saahil Shenoy I. INTRODUCTION This project is based on a completed Kaggle competition. Our goal is to predict which
More informationPERSONALIZED TAG RECOMMENDATION
PERSONALIZED TAG RECOMMENDATION Ziyu Guan, Xiaofei He, Jiajun Bu, Qiaozhu Mei, Chun Chen, Can Wang Zhejiang University, China Univ. of Illinois/Univ. of Michigan 1 Booming of Social Tagging Applications
More informationComparison of Optimization Methods for L1regularized Logistic Regression
Comparison of Optimization Methods for L1regularized Logistic Regression Aleksandar Jovanovich Department of Computer Science and Information Systems Youngstown State University Youngstown, OH 44555 aleksjovanovich@gmail.com
More informationLecture #11: The Perceptron
Lecture #11: The Perceptron Mat Kallada STAT2450  Introduction to Data Mining Outline for Today Welcome back! Assignment 3 The Perceptron Learning Method Perceptron Learning Rule Assignment 3 Will be
More informationMining Web Data. Lijun Zhang
Mining Web Data Lijun Zhang zlj@nju.edu.cn http://cs.nju.edu.cn/zlj Outline Introduction Web Crawling and Resource Discovery Search Engine Indexing and Query Processing Ranking Algorithms Recommender Systems
More information3 announcements: Thanks for filling out the HW1 poll HW2 is due today 5pm (scans must be readable) HW3 will be posted today
3 announcements: Thanks for filling out the HW1 poll HW2 is due today 5pm (scans must be readable) HW3 will be posted today CS246: Mining Massive Datasets Jure Leskovec, Stanford University http://cs246.stanford.edu
More informationCS435 Introduction to Big Data Spring 2018 Colorado State University. 3/21/2018 Week 10B Sangmi Lee Pallickara. FAQs. Collaborative filtering
W10.B.0.0 CS435 Introduction to Big Data W10.B.1 FAQs Term project 5:00PM March 29, 2018 PA2 Recitation: Friday PART 1. LARGE SCALE DATA AALYTICS 4. RECOMMEDATIO SYSTEMS 5. EVALUATIO AD VALIDATIO TECHIQUES
More informationMachine Learning and Computational Statistics, Spring 2015 Homework 1: Ridge Regression and SGD
Machine Learning and Computational Statistics, Spring 2015 Homework 1: Ridge Regression and SGD Due: Friday, February 6, 2015, at 4pm (Submit via NYU Classes) Instructions: Your answers to the questions
More informationKMeans and Gaussian Mixture Models
KMeans and Gaussian Mixture Models David Rosenberg New York University June 15, 2015 David Rosenberg (New York University) DSGA 1003 June 15, 2015 1 / 43 KMeans Clustering Example: Old Faithful Geyser
More informationPart 1: Link Analysis & Page Rank
Chapter 8: Graph Data Part 1: Link Analysis & Page Rank Based on Leskovec, Rajaraman, Ullman 214: Mining of Massive Datasets 1 Graph Data: Social Networks [Source: 4degrees of separation, BackstromBoldiRosaUganderVigna,
More informationSemi supervised clustering for Text Clustering
Semi supervised clustering for Text Clustering N.Saranya 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, Coimbatore 1 ABSTRACT: Based on clustering
More informationConflict Graphs for Parallel Stochastic Gradient Descent
Conflict Graphs for Parallel Stochastic Gradient Descent Darshan Thaker*, Guneet Singh Dhillon* Abstract We present various methods for inducing a conflict graph in order to effectively parallelize Pegasos.
More informationTowards Better User Preference Learning for Recommender Systems
Towards Better User Preference Learning for Recommender Systems by Yao Wu M.Sc., Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2012 B.Sc., University of Science and Technology of China, 2009 Dissertation Submitted in Partial
More informationarxiv: v4 [cs.ir] 28 Jul 2016
ReviewBased Rating Prediction arxiv:1607.00024v4 [cs.ir] 28 Jul 2016 Tal Hadad Dept. of Information Systems Engineering, BenGurion University Email: tah@post.bgu.ac.il Abstract Recommendation systems
More informationClassification. 1 o Semestre 2007/2008
Classification Departamento de Engenharia Informática Instituto Superior Técnico 1 o Semestre 2007/2008 Slides baseados nos slides oficiais do livro Mining the Web c Soumen Chakrabarti. Outline 1 2 3 SingleClass
More informationCS224W: Social and Information Network Analysis Jure Leskovec, Stanford University
CS224W: Social and Information Network Analysis Jure Leskovec, Stanford University http://cs224w.stanford.edu How to organize the Web? First try: Human curated Web directories Yahoo, DMOZ, LookSmart Second
More informationMachine Learning Basics. Sargur N. Srihari
Machine Learning Basics Sargur N. srihari@cedar.buffalo.edu 1 Overview Deep learning is a specific type of ML Necessary to have a solid understanding of the basic principles of ML 2 Topics Stochastic Gradient
More informationOptimization Plugin for RapidMiner. Venkatesh Umaashankar Sangkyun Lee. Technical Report 04/2012. technische universität dortmund
Optimization Plugin for RapidMiner Technical Report Venkatesh Umaashankar Sangkyun Lee 04/2012 technische universität dortmund Part of the work on this technical report has been supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
More informationA Network Intrusion Detection System Architecture Based on Snort and. Computational Intelligence
2nd International Conference on Electronics, Network and Computer Engineering (ICENCE 206) A Network Intrusion Detection System Architecture Based on Snort and Computational Intelligence Tao Liu, a, Da
More informationMIT Samberg Center Cambridge, MA, USA. May 30 th June 2 nd, by C. Rea, R.S. Granetz MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Cambridge, MA, USA
Exploratory Machine Learning studies for disruption prediction on DIIID by C. Rea, R.S. Granetz MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Cambridge, MA, USA Presented at the 2 nd IAEA Technical Meeting on
More informationNeural Network Learning. Today s Lecture. Continuation of Neural Networks. Artificial Neural Networks. Lecture 24: Learning 3. Victor R.
Lecture 24: Learning 3 Victor R. Lesser CMPSCI 683 Fall 2010 Today s Lecture Continuation of Neural Networks Artificial Neural Networks Compose of nodes/units connected by links Each link has a numeric
More informationPart 5: Structured Support Vector Machines
Part 5: Structured Support Vector Machines Sebastian Nowozin and Christoph H. Lampert Providence, 21st June 2012 1 / 34 Problem (LossMinimizing Parameter Learning) Let d(x, y) be the (unknown) true data
More informationEfficient Tuning of SVM Hyperparameters Using Radius/Margin Bound and Iterative Algorithms
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 13, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2002 1225 Efficient Tuning of SVM Hyperparameters Using Radius/Margin Bound and Iterative Algorithms S. Sathiya Keerthi Abstract This paper
More informationLogistic Regression
Logistic Regression ddebarr@uw.edu 20160526 Agenda Model Specification Model Fitting Bayesian Logistic Regression Online Learning and Stochastic Optimization Generative versus Discriminative Classifiers
More informationCLASSIFICATION WITH RADIAL BASIS AND PROBABILISTIC NEURAL NETWORKS
CLASSIFICATION WITH RADIAL BASIS AND PROBABILISTIC NEURAL NETWORKS CHAPTER 4 CLASSIFICATION WITH RADIAL BASIS AND PROBABILISTIC NEURAL NETWORKS 4.1 Introduction Optical character recognition is one of
More informationModule 1 Lecture Notes 2. Optimization Problem and Model Formulation
Optimization Methods: Introduction and Basic concepts 1 Module 1 Lecture Notes 2 Optimization Problem and Model Formulation Introduction In the previous lecture we studied the evolution of optimization
More informationLimitations of Matrix Completion via Trace Norm Minimization
Limitations of Matrix Completion via Trace Norm Minimization ABSTRACT Xiaoxiao Shi Computer Science Department University of Illinois at Chicago xiaoxiao@cs.uic.edu In recent years, compressive sensing
More informationDeep Reinforcement Learning
Deep Reinforcement Learning 1 Outline 1. Overview of Reinforcement Learning 2. Policy Search 3. Policy Gradient and Gradient Estimators 4. Qprop: Sample Efficient Policy Gradient and an Offpolicy Critic
More informationAllstate Insurance Claims Severity: A Machine Learning Approach
Allstate Insurance Claims Severity: A Machine Learning Approach Rajeeva Gaur SUNet ID: rajeevag Jeff Pickelman SUNet ID: pattern Hongyi Wang SUNet ID: hongyiw I. INTRODUCTION The insurance industry has
More informationCSE 494: Information Retrieval, Mining and Integration on the Internet
CSE 494: Information Retrieval, Mining and Integration on the Internet Midterm. 18 th Oct 2011 (Instructor: Subbarao Kambhampati) Inclass Duration: Duration of the class 1hr 15min (75min) Total points:
More informationCSE446: Linear Regression. Spring 2017
CSE446: Linear Regression Spring 2017 Ali Farhadi Slides adapted from Carlos Guestrin and Luke Zettlemoyer Prediction of continuous variables Billionaire says: Wait, that s not what I meant! You say: Chill
More informationClustering. SC4/SM4 Data Mining and Machine Learning, Hilary Term 2017 Dino Sejdinovic
Clustering SC4/SM4 Data Mining and Machine Learning, Hilary Term 2017 Dino Sejdinovic Clustering is one of the fundamental and ubiquitous tasks in exploratory data analysis a first intuition about the
More informationMultilabel Collective Classification using Adaptive Neighborhoods
Multilabel Collective Classification using Adaptive Neighborhoods Tanwistha Saha, Huzefa Rangwala and Carlotta Domeniconi Department of Computer Science George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia, USA
More informationNeural Network Weight Selection Using Genetic Algorithms
Neural Network Weight Selection Using Genetic Algorithms David Montana presented by: Carl Fink, Hongyi Chen, Jack Cheng, Xinglong Li, Bruce Lin, Chongjie Zhang April 12, 2005 1 Neural Networks Neural networks
More informationDS504/CS586: Big Data Analytics Big Data Clustering Prof. Yanhua Li
Welcome to DS504/CS586: Big Data Analytics Big Data Clustering Prof. Yanhua Li Time: 6:00pm 8:50pm Thu Location: AK 232 Fall 2016 High Dimensional Data v Given a cloud of data points we want to understand
More informationSemantic text features from small world graphs
Semantic text features from small world graphs Jurij Leskovec 1 and John ShaweTaylor 2 1 Carnegie Mellon University, USA. Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia. jure@cs.cmu.edu 2 University of Southampton,UK
More informationBuilding Classifiers using Bayesian Networks
Building Classifiers using Bayesian Networks Nir Friedman and Moises Goldszmidt 1997 Presented by Brian Collins and Lukas Seitlinger Paper Summary The Naive Bayes classifier has reasonable performance
More informationKnowledge Discovery and Data Mining 1 (VO) ( )
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 1 (VO) (707.003) Data Matrices and Vector Space Model Denis Helic KTI, TU Graz Nov 6, 2014 Denis Helic (KTI, TU Graz) KDDM1 Nov 6, 2014 1 / 55 Big picture: KDDM Probability
More informationCollaborative Filtering based on User Trends
Collaborative Filtering based on User Trends Panagiotis Symeonidis, Alexandros Nanopoulos, Apostolos Papadopoulos, and Yannis Manolopoulos Aristotle University, Department of Informatics, Thessalonii 54124,
More informationBig Data Methods. Chapter 5: Machine learning. Big Data Methods, Chapter 5, Slide 1
Big Data Methods Chapter 5: Machine learning Big Data Methods, Chapter 5, Slide 1 5.1 Introduction to machine learning What is machine learning? Concerned with the study and development of algorithms that
More information3 Types of Gradient Descent Algorithms for Small & Large Data Sets
3 Types of Gradient Descent Algorithms for Small & Large Data Sets Introduction Gradient Descent Algorithm (GD) is an iterative algorithm to find a Global Minimum of an objective function (cost function)
More informationGradient Descent. Wed Sept 20th, James McInenrey Adapted from slides by Francisco J. R. Ruiz
Gradient Descent Wed Sept 20th, 2017 James McInenrey Adapted from slides by Francisco J. R. Ruiz Housekeeping A few clarifications of and adjustments to the course schedule: No more breaks at the midpoint
More informationSentiment Classification of Food Reviews
Sentiment Classification of Food Reviews Hua Feng Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 fengh15@stanford.edu Ruixi Lin Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford
More informationFeature Selection Using ModifiedMCA Based Scoring Metric for Classification
2011 International Conference on Information Communication and Management IPCSIT vol.16 (2011) (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore Feature Selection Using ModifiedMCA Based Scoring Metric for Classification
More informationWeb Personalization & Recommender Systems
Web Personalization & Recommender Systems COSC 488 Slides are based on:  Bamshad Mobasher, Depaul University  Recent publications: see the last page (Reference section) Web Personalization & Recommender
More informationWeb Personalization & Recommender Systems
Web Personalization & Recommender Systems COSC 488 Slides are based on:  Bamshad Mobasher, Depaul University  Recent publications: see the last page (Reference section) Web Personalization & Recommender
More informationTREC 2017 Dynamic Domain Track Overview
TREC 2017 Dynamic Domain Track Overview Grace Hui Yang Zhiwen Tang Ian Soboroff Georgetown University Georgetown University NIST huiyang@cs.georgetown.edu zt79@georgetown.edu ian.soboroff@nist.gov 1. Introduction
More information3 Nonlinear Regression
CSC 4 / CSC D / CSC C 3 Sometimes linear models are not sufficient to capture the realworld phenomena, and thus nonlinear models are necessary. In regression, all such models will have the same basic
More informationMultiresponse Sparse Regression with Application to Multidimensional Scaling
Multiresponse Sparse Regression with Application to Multidimensional Scaling Timo Similä and Jarkko Tikka Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Computer and Information Science P.O. Box 54,
More informationMultimodal Information Spaces for Contentbased Image Retrieval
Research Proposal Multimodal Information Spaces for Contentbased Image Retrieval Abstract Currently, image retrieval by content is a research problem of great interest in academia and the industry, due
More informationMCMC Methods for data modeling
MCMC Methods for data modeling Kenneth Scerri Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering Introduction 1. Symposium on Data Modelling 2. Outline: a. Definition and uses of MCMC b. MCMC algorithms
More informationOpportunities and challenges in personalization of online hotel search
Opportunities and challenges in personalization of online hotel search David Zibriczky Data Science & Analytics Lead, User Profiling Introduction 2 Introduction About Mission: Helping the travelers to
More informationAIIA shot boundary detection at TRECVID 2006
AIIA shot boundary detection at TRECVID 6 Z. Černeková, N. Nikolaidis and I. Pitas Artificial Intelligence and Information Analysis Laboratory Department of Informatics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
More informationDetecting Burnscar from Hyperspectral Imagery via Sparse Representation with LowRank Interference
Detecting Burnscar from Hyperspectral Imagery via Sparse Representation with LowRank Interference Minh Dao 1, Xiang Xiang 1, Bulent Ayhan 2, Chiman Kwan 2, Trac D. Tran 1 Johns Hopkins Univeristy, 3400
More informationBuilding Fast Performance Models for x86 Code Sequences
Justin Womersley Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 USA Christopher John Cullen Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 USA jwomers@stanford.edu cjc888@stanford.edu
More informationA novel supervised learning algorithm and its use for Spam Detection in Social Bookmarking Systems
A novel supervised learning algorithm and its use for Spam Detection in Social Bookmarking Systems Anestis Gkanogiannis and Theodore Kalamboukis Department of Informatics Athens University of Economics
More informationPerformance of Recommender Algorithms on TopN Recommendation Tasks
Performance of Recommender Algorithms on Top Recommendation Tasks Paolo Cremonesi Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy paolo.cremonesi@polimi.it Yehuda Koren Yahoo! Research Haifa, Israel yehuda@yahooinc.com
More information