skip to main content
10.1145/1553374.1553454acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicmlConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Transfer learning for collaborative filtering via a rating-matrix generative model

Published:14 June 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cross-domain collaborative filtering solves the sparsity problem by transferring rating knowledge across multiple domains. In this paper, we propose a rating-matrix generative model (RMGM) for effective cross-domain collaborative filtering. We first show that the relatedness across multiple rating matrices can be established by finding a shared implicit cluster-level rating matrix, which is next extended to a cluster-level rating model. Consequently, a rating matrix of any related task can be viewed as drawing a set of users and items from a user-item joint mixture model as well as drawing the corresponding ratings from the cluster-level rating model. The combination of these two models gives the RMGM, which can be used to fill the missing ratings for both existing and new users. A major advantage of RMGM is that it can share the knowledge by pooling the rating data from multiple tasks even when the users and items of these tasks do not overlap. We evaluate the RMGM empirically on three real-world collaborative filtering data sets to show that RMGM can outperform the individual models trained separately.

References

  1. Argyriou, A., Evgeniou, T., & Pontil, M. (2007). Multi-task feature learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 (pp. 41--48).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, J. (2000). A model of inductive bias learning. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research, 12, 149--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Caruana, R. A. (1997). Multitask learning. Machine Learning, 28, 41--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Coyle, M., & Smyth, B. (2008). Web search shared: Social aspects of a collaborative, community-based search network. Proc. of the Fifth Int'l Conf. on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (pp. 103--112). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. of the Royal Statistical Society, B39, 1--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding, C., Li, T., Peng, W., & Park, H. (2006). Orthogonal nonnegative matrix tri-factorizations for clustering. Proc. of the 12th ACM SIGKDD Int'l Conf. (pp. 126--135). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. George, T., & Merugu, S. (2005). A scalable collaborative filtering framework based on co-clustering. Proc. of the Fifth IEEE Int'l Conf. on Data Mining (pp. 625--628). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hofmann, T., & Puzicha, J. (1998). Statistical models for co-occurrence data (Technical Report AIM-1625). Artifical Intelligence Laboratory, MIT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hofmann, T., & Puzicha, J. (1999). Latent class models for collaborative filtering. Proc. of the 16th Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 688--693). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jebara, T. (2004). Multi-task feature and kernel selection for SVMs. Proc. of the 21st Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning (pp. 329--336). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Pennock, D. M., Horvitz, E., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2000). Collaborative filtering by personality diagnosis: A hybrid memory- and model-based approach. Proc. of the 16th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 473--480). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Raina, R., Battle, A., Lee, H., Packer, B., & Ng, A. Y. (2007). Self-taught learning: Transfer learning from unlabeled data. Proc. of the Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning (pp. 759--766). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Resnick, P., Iacovou, N., Suchak, M., Bergstrom, P., & Riedl, J. (1994). GroupLens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 175--186). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., & Riedl, J. (2001). Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. Proc. of the 10th Int'l World Wide Web Conf. (pp. 285--295). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Si, L., & Jin, R. (2003). Flexible mixture model for collaborative filtering. Proc. of the 20th Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning (pp. 704--711).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Srebro, N., & Jaakkola, T. (2003). Weighted low-rank approximations. Proc. of the 20th Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning (pp. 720--727).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Transfer learning for collaborative filtering via a rating-matrix generative model

                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 Other conferences
                  ICML '09: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning
                  June 2009
                  1331 pages
                  ISBN:9781605585161
                  DOI:10.1145/1553374

                  Copyright © 2009 Copyright 2009 by the author(s)/owner(s).

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 14 June 2009

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  Overall Acceptance Rate140of548submissions,26%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader