a scalable collaborative filtering framework based on co clustering
DESCRIPTION
A scalable collaborative filtering framework based on co clusteringTRANSCRIPT
A SCALABLE COLLABORATIVE FILTERING FRAMEWORK BASED ON CO-CLUSTERINGAuthors/ Thomas George and Srujana Merugu
Source/ ICDM’05, pp. 628-628
Presenter/ Allen
1
OUTLINE
Introduction Related Work Problem Definition Collaborative Filtering via Co-clustering Scalable Collaborative Filtering System Experimental Results Conclusion
2
INTRODUCTION
Due to the overwhelming increasing in web-based activities, users are often forced to choose from a large number of products or content items.
To aid users in the decision making process, it has become increasingly important to design recommender systems.
Collaborative filtering identify the likely preferences of a user based on the known preferences of other users.
3
INTRODUCTION (CONT.) Existing collaborative filtering methods based on correlation criteria
Singular value decomposition (SVD) Non-negative matrix factorization (NNMF)
Drawbacks: Computationally expensive of training component
The practical scenarios such as real-time news personalization require dynamic collaborative filtering.
The key idea Simultaneously obtaining user and item neighborhoods via co-
clustering. Generating predictions based on average ratings. 4
INTRODUCTION (CONT.)
Two new contributions: Dynamic collaborative filtering approach
Supporting the entry of new users, items and ratings via a hybrid of incremental and batch versions of the co-clustering algorithm.
A scalable, real-time collaborative filtering system Developing parallel versions of co-clustering, prediction and
incremental training routines.
Notation: A: matrix, e.g. Aij denoting the corresponding matrix elements.
: sets, and enumerated as {xi}ni=1, where xi are the elements of
the set. 5
RELATED WORK
Recommender System Content-based filtering system Collaborative filtering system
Co-clustering SVD and NNMF-based filtering techniques that predict the
unknown ratings based on a low rank approximation of the original ratings matrix. The missing values are filled with the average ratings.
Incremental versions of SVD has been proposed to solve the computational expensive problem. (SDM 2003)
6
PROBLEM DEFINITION
Let U={ui}mi=1 be the set of users such that |U|=m and
P={pj}nj=1 be the set of items such that |P|=n.
Let A be the mn ratings matrix such that Aij is the rating of the user ui to the item pj. Let W be the mn matrix corresponding to the condifence of
the ratings in A. Wij=1, the rating is known and 0 otherwise.
Let user clustering : {1, …, m} → {1, …, k}, and item clustering :{1, …, n} → {1, …, l} k: # user clusters; l: # item clusters
7
PROBLEM DEFINITION (CONT.) The approximate matrix  is given by
where g=(i), h=(j). Ai
R, AjC are the average ratings of user ui and item pj.
AghCOC, Ag
RC and AhCC are the average ratings of the corresponding
co-cluster, user-cluster and item-cluster.
8
COLLABORATIVE FILTERING VIA CO-CLUSTERING
Static training (co-clustering): the goal is to minimize
The row and column assignment steps can be implemented efficiently by pre-computing the invariant parts of the update cost functions. Required info. Row updating: minimizing
Column updating: minimizing
9CCh
COChi
tmpji AAA )(
3)(
STATIC TRAINING: CO-CLUSTERING
10
PREDICTION
11
INCREMENTAL TRAINING
12
SCALABLE COLLABORATIVE FILTERING SYSTEM
Using a distributed memory representation for the data objects so that each of the processors P1 and P2 are in fact clusters of processors. P1 handles the prediction and incremental training. P2 is responsible for the static training.
13
PARALLEL CO-CLUSTERING
14
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Datasets and algorithm Movie-lens (100K): 943 users and 1682 movies consists of
100,000 ratings(1-5). BookCrossing: 470034 users and 133438 books consists of
269392 ratings(1-10). Movie1-Movie10: 10-100% ratings of the movie-lens 100K.
80% training and 20% testing for all the datasets. Evaluation metrics: Mean Absolute Error (MAE)
The experiments evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency in terms of MAE and execution time.
15
MAE COMPARISON
Mov1: movie-lens Mov2: BookCrossing Mov3: 10 subsets of movie-lens
16
K=3
VARIATION OF MAE WITH # PARAMETERS
# prediction parameters: COCLUST: (m+n+kl-k-l) values SVD, NNMF: (m+n)(k+l) values
Movie3 dataset
17
EFFICIENCY
The time is needed for prediction on each given test pair of movie-lens.
Training time (co-clustering) vs. Data size Movie-lens dataset Experimental devices
AMD 1.4Ghz on 128 computer
nodes with 384MB RAM
18
TRAINING TIME VS. # OF PROCESSORS
Movie-lens dataset Experimental devices
AMD 1.4Ghz on different # of processors with 384MB RAM
19
CONCLUSION
Recommender system are proving to be extremely useful for a number of online activities such as e-commerce.
Regarding to the dynamic scenario, the efficiency and effectiveness issues should be concerned. New users, items and ratings enter the system at a rapid rate.
This paper proposed a new dynamic CF approach based on co-clustering.
Empirical results indicate the high quality predictions at a much lower computational cost.
20