skip to main content
10.1145/3018661.3018686acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Social Collaborative Viewpoint Regression with Explainable Recommendations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

A recommendation is called explainable if it not only predicts a numerical rating for an item, but also generates explanations for users' preferences. Most existing methods for explainable recommendation apply topic models to analyze user reviews to provide descriptions along with the recommendations they produce. So far, such methods have neglected user opinions and influences from social relations as a source of information for recommendations, even though these are known to improve the rating prediction.

In this paper, we propose a latent variable model, called social collaborative viewpoint regression (sCVR), for predicting item ratings based on user opinions and social relations. To this end, we use so-called viewpoints, represented as tuples of a concept, topic, and a sentiment label from both user reviews and trusted social relations. In addition, such viewpoints can be used as explanations. We apply a Gibbs EM sampler to infer posterior distributions of sCVR. Experiments conducted on three large benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed method for predicting item ratings and for generating explanations.

References

  1. R. M. Bell and Y. Koren. Improved neighborhood-based collaborative filtering. In phKDD Cup and Workshop at the KDD, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. phPattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 35 (8): 1798--1828, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Beutel, K. Murray, C. Faloutsos, and A. J. Smola. Cobafi: collaborative bayesian filtering. In phWWW, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. Bhargava, T. Phan, J. Zhou, and J. Lee. Who, what, when, and where: Multi-dimensional collaborative recommendations using tensor factorization on sparse user-generated data. In phWWW, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Bilgic and R. J. Mooney. Explaining recommendations: Satisfaction vs. promotion. In phBeyond Personalization Workshop, IUI, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Blei, A. Ng, and M. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. phJournal of machine Learning research, 3: 993--1022, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Chen, X. Zheng, Y. Wang, F. Hong, and Z. Lin. Context-aware collaborative topic regression with social matrix factorization for recommender systems. In phAAAI, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. K. Chen, T. Chen, G. Zheng, O. Jin, E. Yao, and Y. Yu. Collaborative personalized tweet recommendation. In phSIGIR, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Chuklin, I. Markov, and M. de Rijke. phClick Models for Web Search. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, August 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Q. Diao, M. Qiu, C.-Y. Wu, A. J. Smola, J. Jiang, and C. Wang. Jointly modeling aspects, ratings and sentiments for movie recommendation (jmars). In phKDD, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. X. Ding, B. Liu, and P. S. Yu. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In phWSDM, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. X. He, T. Chen, M.-Y. Kan, and X. Chen. Trirank: Review-aware explainable recommendation by modeling aspects. In phCIKM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. phScience, 313 (5786): 504--507, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Huang, S. Wang, T.-Y. Liu, J. Ma, Z. Chen, and J. Veijalainen. Listwise collaborative filtering. In phSIGIR, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Jamali and M. Ester. A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks. In phRecSys, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. N. Kalchbrenner, E. Grefenstette, and P. Blunsom. A sentence model based on convolutional neural networks. In phACL, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. T. Kenter, P. Huijnen, M. Wevers, and M. de Rijke. Ad hoc monitoring of vocabulary shifts over time. In phCIKM 2015: 24th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, October 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. I. Konstas, V. Stathopoulos, and J. M. Jose. On social networks and collaborative recommendation. In phSIGIR, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky. Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. phComputer, 6 (8): 30--37, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. D. Lee and H. S. Seung. Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In phNIPS, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. F. Li, C. Han, M. Huang, X. Zhu, Y.-J. Xia, S. Zhang, and H. Yu. Structure-aware review mining and summarization. In phColing, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. G. Ling, M. R. Lyu, and I. King. Ratings meet reviews, a combined approach to recommend. In phACM RecSys, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. P. Lops, M. De Gemmis, and G. Semeraro. Content-based recommender systems: State of the art and trends. In phRecommender systems handbook, pages 73--105. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. H. Ma, I. King, and M. Lyu. Learning to recommend with social trust ensemble. In phSIGIR, pages 203--210, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. McAuley and J. Leskovec. Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In phRecSys, pages 165--172, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, and J. Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. pharXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. T. Minka. Estimating a dirichlet distribution, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Mnih and R. Salakhutdinov. Probabilistic matrix factorization. In phNIPS, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. B. Pang, L. Lee, and S. Vaithyanathan. Thumbs up?: sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In phEMNLP, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Z. Ren and M. de Rijke. Summarizing contrastive themes via hierarchical non-parametric processes. In phSIGIR, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Z. Ren, O. Inel, L. Aroyo, and M. de Rijke. Time-aware multi-viewpoint summarization of multilingual social text streams. In phCIKM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom, and J. Riedl. Grouplens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In phCSCW, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. "Why should I trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In phKDD, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl. Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In phWWW, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. A. Sharma and D. Cosley. Do social explanations work?: studying and modeling the effects of social explanations in recommender systems. In phWWW, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Y. Shi, M. Larson, and A. Hanjalic. List-wise learning to rank with matrix factorization for collaborative filtering. In phRecSys, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Y. Shi, A. Karatzoglou, L. Baltrunas, M. Larson, N. Oliver, and A. Hanjalic. Climf: learning to maximize reciprocal rank with collaborative less-is-more filtering. In phRecSys, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. R. Socher et al. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In phEMNLP, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. X. Su and T. M. Khoshgoftaar. A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. phAdvances in artificial intelligence, 2009: 4, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. D. Tang, F. Wei, N. Yang, M. Zhou, T. Liu, and B. Qin. Learning sentiment-specific word embedding for twitter sentiment classification. In phACL, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. D. Tang, B. Qin, and T. Liu. Document modeling with gated recurrent neural network for sentiment classification. In phEMNLP, 2015\natexlaba.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. D. Tang, B. Qin, T. Liu, and Y. Yang. User modeling with neural network for review rating prediction. In phIJCAI, 2015\natexlabb.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. M. Thelwall, K. Buckley, and G. Paltoglou. Sentiment strength detection for the social web. phJ. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 63 (1): 163--173, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. N. Tintarev and J. Masthoff. Designing and evaluating explanations for recommender systems. In phRecommender Systems Handbook, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. P. D. Turney. Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In phACL, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. J. Vig, S. Sen, and J. Riedl. Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. In phIUI, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. H. Wallach. Topic modeling: beyond bag-of-words. In phICML 2006, pages 977--984, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. C. Wang and D. M. Blei. Collaborative topic modeling for recommending scientific articles. In phKDD, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Y. Xu, W. Lam, and T. Lin. Collaborative filtering incorporating review text and co-clusters of hidden user communities and item groups. In phCIKM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. B. Yang, Y. Lei, D. Liu, and J. Liu. Social collaborative filtering by trust. In phIJCAI, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. S. Yang, B. Long, A. Smola, N. Sadagopan, Z. Zheng, and H. Zha. Like like alike: joint friendship and interest propagation in social networks. In phWWW 2011, pages 537--546, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. M. Ye, X. Liu, and W. Lee. Exploring social influence for recommendation: a generative model approach. In phSIGIR, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Y. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y. Liu, S. Ma, and S. Feng. Localized matrix factorization for recommendation based on matrix block diagonal forms. In phWWW, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Y. Zhang, G. Lai, M. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, and S. Ma. Explicit factor models for explainable recommendation based on phrase-level sentiment analysis. In phSIGIR, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. J. Zhao, L. Dong, J. Wu, and K. Xu. Moodlens: an emoticon-based sentiment analysis system for chinese tweets. In phKDD, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Social Collaborative Viewpoint Regression with Explainable Recommendations

    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
      WSDM '17: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
      February 2017
      868 pages
      ISBN:9781450346757
      DOI:10.1145/3018661

      Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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: 2 February 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      WSDM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate80of505submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader