skip to main content
10.1145/2441776.2441933acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

User-centric evaluation of a K-furthest neighbor collaborative filtering recommender algorithm

Published:23 February 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Collaborative filtering recommender systems often use nearest neighbor methods to identify candidate items. In this paper we present an inverted neighborhood model, k-Furthest Neighbors, to identify less ordinary neighborhoods for the purpose of creating more diverse recommendations. The approach is evaluated two-fold, once in a traditional information retrieval evaluation setting where the model is trained and validated on a split train/test set, and once through an online user study (N=132) to identify users' perceived quality of the recommender. A standard k-nearest neighbor recommender is used as a baseline in both evaluation settings. Our evaluation shows that even though the proposed furthest neighbor model is outperformed in the traditional evaluation setting, the perceived usefulness of the algorithm shows no significant difference in the results of the user study.

References

  1. FilmTrust: movie recommendations using trust in web-based social networks, vol. 1 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdi, H. Bonferroni and Sidak corrections for multiple comparisons. Sage, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Averous, Y. Untranslateable words - serendipity. Journal of the Northern Californa Translators Association: Online Edition (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellogin, A., and Parapar, J. Using graph partitioning techniques for neighbour selection in user-based collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys'12, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 213--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bollen, D., Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., and Graus, M. Understanding choice overload in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys'10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 63--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bourke, S., McCarthy, K., and Smyth, B. Power to the people: exploring neighbourhood formations in social recommender system. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys'11, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 337--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Breese, J. S., Heckerman, D., and Kadie, C. Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering, vol. 461. San Francisco, CA, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Candillier, L., Jack, K., Fessant, F., and Meyer, F. State-of-the-art recommender systems. Collaborative and Social Information Retrieval and AccessTechniques for Improved User Modeling (2009), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cover, T., and Hart, P. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on 13, 1 (january 1967), 21--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Herlocker, J., Konstan, J. A., and Riedl, J. An empirical analysis of design choices in neighborhood-based collaborative filtering algorithms. Inf. Retr. 5, 4 (Oct. 2002), 287--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., Terveen, L. G., and Riedl, J. T. Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. Trans. Inf. Syst. 22, 1 (2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Karypis, G. Evaluation of item-based top-n recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM'01, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2001), 247--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Knijnenburg, B., Willemsen, M., Gantner, Z., Soncu, H., and Newell, C. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22 (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., and Kobsa, A. A pragmatic procedure to support the user-centric evaluation of recommender systems. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys'11, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 321--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lam, S., Frankowski, D., and Riedl, J. Do you trust your recommendations? an exploration of security and privacy issues in recommender systems. In Emerging Trends in Information and Communication Security, G. Muller, Ed., vol. 3995 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006, 14--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lathia, N., Hailes, S., Capra, L., and Amatriain, X. Temporal diversity in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR'10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 210--217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Marlin, B. M., and Zemel, R. S. Collaborative prediction and ranking with non-random missing data. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys'09, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2009), 5--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. McNee, S. M., Riedl, J., and Konstan, J. A. Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, CHI EA '06, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2006), 1097--1101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Murakami, T., Mori, K., and Orihara, R. Metrics for evaluating the serendipity of recommendation lists. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on New frontiers in artificial intelligence, JSAI'07, Springer-Verlag (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008), 40--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pu, P., Chen, L., and Hu, R. A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys'11, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 157--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rafter, R., O'Mahony, M. P., Hurley, N. J., and Smyth, B. What have the neighbours ever done for us? a collaborative filtering perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization: formerly UM and AH, UMAP'09, Springer-Verlag (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009), 355--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Said, A., Jain, B. J., and Albayrak, S. Analyzing weighting schemes in collaborative filtering: Cold start, post cold start and power users. In 27th ACM Symposium On Applied Computing (SAC'12), ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Said, A., Kille, B., Jain, B. J., and Albayrak, S. Increasing diversity through furthest neighbor-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the WSDM'12 Workshop on Diversity in Document Retrieval(DDR'12)(2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarwar, B. M., Karypis, G., Konstan, J. A., and Riedl, J. T. Application of dimensionality reduction in recommender system -- a case study. In WebKDD Workshop at the ACM SIGKKD(2000).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J., and Sen, S. The adaptive web. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, ch. Collaborative filtering recommender systems, 291--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Smyth, B., and McClave, P. Similarity vs. diversity. In Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, D. Aha and I. Watson, Eds., vol. 2080 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2001, 347--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Swearingen, K., and Sinha, R. Beyond Algorithms: An HCI Perspective on Recommender Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang, Y. C., Seaghdha, D. O., Quercia, D., and Jambor, T. Auralist: introducing serendipity into music recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, WSDM'12, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 13--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Zhou, T., Kuscsik, Z., Wakeling, J.-G. L. M. M. J. R., and Zhang, Y.-C. Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 107, 10 (2010), 4511--4515.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Ziegler, C.-N., McNee, S. M., Konstan, J. A., and Lausen, G. Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW'05, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2005), 22--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. User-centric evaluation of a K-furthest neighbor collaborative filtering recommender algorithm

      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
        CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
        February 2013
        1594 pages
        ISBN:9781450313315
        DOI:10.1145/2441776

        Copyright © 2013 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: 23 February 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        CSCW '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader