skip to main content
10.1145/1040830.1040870acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Trust in recommender systems

Published:10 January 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recommender systems have proven to be an important response to the information overload problem, by providing users with more proactive and personalized information services. And collaborative filtering techniques have proven to be an vital component of many such recommender systems as they facilitate the generation of high-quality recom-mendations by leveraging the preferences of communities of similar users. In this paper we suggest that the traditional emphasis on user similarity may be overstated. We argue that additional factors have an important role to play in guiding recommendation. Specifically we propose that the trustworthiness of users must be an important consideration. We present two computational models of trust and show how they can be readily incorporated into standard collaborative filtering frameworks in a variety of ways. We also show how these trust models can lead to improved predictive accuracy during recommendation.

References

  1. Alfarez Abdul-Rahman and Stephen Hailes. A distributed trust model. In New Security Paradigms 1997, pages 48--60, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Paolo Avesani, Paolo Massa, and Roberto Tiella. Moleskiing: a trust-aware decentralized recommender system. 1st Workshop on Friend of a Friend, Social Networking and the Semantic Web. Galway, Ireland, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. John S. Breese, David Heckerman, and Carl Kadie. Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In Gregory F. Cooper and Serafín Moral, editors, Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-98), pages 43--52, San Francisco, July 24-26 1998. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Paul Cotter and Barry Smyth. Ptv: Intelligent personalised tv guides. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pages 957--964. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Alan Smeaton et al. The físchlár digital video system: a digital library of broadcast tv programmes. Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jennifer Golbeck and James Hendler. Accuracy of metrics for inferring trust and reputation in semantic web-based social networks. In Proceedings of EKAW'04, pages LNAI 2416, p. 278 ff., 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. N. Kushmerick. Robustness analyses of instance-based collaborative recommendation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, Helsinki, Finland., volume 2430, pages 232--244. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Shyong K. Lam and John Riedl. Shilling recommender systems for fun and profit. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 393--402. ACM Press, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Raph Levien. Attack resistant trust metrics. Ph.D Thesis, UC Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Marsh. Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Stirling, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paolo Massa and Paolo Avesani. Trust-aware collaborative filtering for recommender systems. To Appear in: Proceedings of International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Agia Napa, Cyprus, 25 Oct-29 Oct 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Paolo Massa and Bobby Bhattacharjee. Using trust in recommender systems: an experimental analysis. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Trust Managment, Oxford, England, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. P. Melville, R. Mooney, and R. Nagarajan. Content-boosted collaborative filtering. In P. Melville, R. J. Mooney, and R. Nagarajan. Content-boosted collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 2001., 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Miquel Montaner, Beatriz Lopez, and Josep Lluis de la Rosa. Developing trust in recommender agents. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pages 304--305. ACM Press, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Oard and J. Kim. Implicit feedback for recommender systems, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. John O'Donovan and John Dunnion. A framework for evaluation of collaborative recommendation algorithms in an adaptive recommender system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (CICLing-04), Seoul, Korea, pages 502--506. Springer-Verlag, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael O'Mahony, Neil Hurley, Nicholas Kushmerick, and Guenole Silvestre. Collaborative rec-ommendation: A robustness analysis, url: citeseer.ist.psu.edu/508439.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael P. O'Mahony, Neil Hurley, and Guenole C. M. Silvestre. An attack on collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pages 494--503. Springer-Verlag, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Derry O'Sullivan, David C. Wilson, and Barry Smyth. Improving case-based recommendation: A collaborative filtering approach. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Case Based Reasoning., pages LNAI 2416, p. 278 ff., 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Paul Resnick, Neophytos Iacovou, Mitesh Suchak, Peter Bergstrom, and John Riedl. Grouplens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In Proceedings of ACM CSCW'94 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Sharing Information and Creating Meaning, pages 175--186, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rashmi Sinha and Kirsten Swearingen. The role of transparency in recommender systems. In CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 830--831. ACM Press, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. Smyth, D. Wilson, and D. O'Sullivan. Improving the quality of the personalised electronic programme guide. In In Proceedings of the TV'02 the 2nd Workshop on Personalisation in Future TV, May 2002., pages 42--55, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Trust in recommender systems

    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
      IUI '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
      January 2005
      344 pages
      ISBN:1581138946
      DOI:10.1145/1040830

      Copyright © 2005 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: 10 January 2005

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader