Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 197–208 | Cite as

Two of a kind or the ratings game? Adaptive pairwise preferences and latent factor models

Research Article
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

Latent factor models have become a workhorse for a large number of recommender systems. While these systems are built using ratings data, which is typically assumed static, the ability to incorporate different kinds of subsequent user feedback is an important asset. For instance, the user might want to provide additional information to the system in order to improve his personal recommendations. To this end, we examine a novel scheme for efficiently learning (or refining) user parameters from such feedback. We propose a scheme where users are presented with a sequence of pairwise preference questions: “Do you prefer item A over B?” User parameters are updated based on their response, and subsequent questions are chosen adaptively after incorporating the feedback. We operate in a Bayesian framework and the choice of questions is based on an information gain criterion. We validate the scheme on the Netflix movie ratings data set and a proprietary television viewership data set. A user study and automated experiments validate our findings.

Keywords

recommender systems latent factor models pairwise preferences active learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sarma A D, Sarma A D, Gollapudi S, Panigrahy R. Ranking mechanisms in twitter-like forums. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 2010, 21–30Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg D, Nichols D, Oki B M, Terry D. Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Communications of the ACM, 1992, 35(12): 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koren Y, Bell R, Volinsky C. Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. IEEE Computer, 2009, 42(8): 30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agarwal D, Chen B C. Regression-based latent factor models. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2009, 19–28Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu Y, Koren Y, Volinsky C. Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. 2008, 263–272Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hacker S, von Ahn L. Matchin: eliciting user preferences with an online game. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2009, 1207–1216Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu N N, Zhao M, Yang Q. Probabilistic latent preference analysis for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2009, 759–766Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rendle S, Freudenthaler C, Gantner Z, Schmidt-Thieme L. BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 2009, 452–461Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boutilier C, Zemel R S, Marlin B. Active collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 19th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 2003, 98–106Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin R, Si L. A Bayesian approach toward active learning for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 2004, 278–285Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harpale A S, Yang Y. Personalized active learning for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2008, 91–98Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mackay D J C. Bayesian methods for adaptive models. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, 1992Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Minka T P. Expectation propagation for approximate Bayesian inference. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 2001, 362–369Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qi Y, Minka T P, Picard R W, Ghahramani Z. Predictive automatic relevance determination by expectation propagation. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning. 2004Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park S T, Chu W. Pairwise preference regression for cold-start recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 2009, 21–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elo A. The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present. New York: Arco Publications, 1978Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herbrich R, Minka, T, Graepel T. TrueSkillℳ: a Bayesian skill rating system. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2007, 569–576Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AT&T Labs-ResearchFlorham ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations