The Semantics of Movie Metadata: Enhancing User Profiling for Hybrid Recommendation

  • Márcio Soares
  • Paula VianaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 569)


In movie/TV collaborative recommendation approaches, ratings users gave to already visited content are often used as the only input to build profiles. However, users might have rated equally the same movie but due to different reasons: either because of its genre, the crew or the director. In such cases, this rating is insufficient to represent in detail users’ preferences and it is wrong to conclude that they share similar tastes. The work presented in this paper tries to solve this ambiguity by exploiting hidden semantics in metadata elements. The influence of each of the standard description elements (actors, directors and genre) in representing user’s preferences is analyzed. Simulations were conducted using Movielens and Netflix datasets and different evaluation metrics were considered. The results demonstrate that the implemented approach yields significant advantages both in terms of improving performance, as well as in dealing with common limitations of standard collaborative algorithm.


User profiling Hybrid recommendation Movie metadata Semantic knowledge 



The work was partially supported by FourEyes, a RL within Project “TEC4Growth – Pervasive Intelligence, Enhancers and Proofs of Concept with Industrial Impact/NORTE-01- 0145-FEDER-000020”, financed by the North Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, and through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).


  1. 1.
    Su, X., Khoshgoftaar, T.M.: A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Adv. Artif. Intell. 2009, 4:2–4:21 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lops, P., Gemmis, M., Giovanni, S.: Content-based recommender systems: state of the art and trends. In: Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B., Kantor, P.B. (eds.) Recommender Systems Handbook. pp. 73–105. Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soares, M., Viana, P.: Tuning metadata for better movie content-based recommendation systems. Multimed. Tools Appl. 74, 7015–7036 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke, R.: Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model. User Adap. Inter. 12, 331–370 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kabassi, K.: Personalizing recommendations for tourists. Telematics Inform. 27, 51–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viana, P., Soares, M.: A hybrid recommendation system for news in a mobile environment. In: 6th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics, pp. 3:1–3:9. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lakiotaki, K., Matsatsinis, N.F., Tsoukias, A.: Multicriteria user modeling in recommender systems. IEEE Intell. Syst. 26, 64–76 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Hassan, M., Lu, H., Lu, J.: A semantic enhanced hybrid recommendation approach: a case study of e-Government tourism service recommendation system. Decis. Support Syst. 72, 97–109 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, R.-Q., Kong, F.-S.: Semantic-enhanced personalized recommender system. In: International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, pp. 4069–4074. IEEE Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cantador, I., Bellogín, A., Castells, P.: A multilayer ontology-based hybrid recommendation model. AI Commun. Recommender Syst. 21, 203–210 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, B.M., Li, Q., Park, C.S., Kim, S.G., Kim, J.Y.: A new approach for combining content-based and collaborative filters. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 27, 79–91 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, W.-P., Kaoli, C., Huang, J.-Y.: A smart TV system with body-gesture control, tag–based rating and context-aware recommendation. Knowl. Based Syst. 56, 167–178 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manzato, M.G.: Discovering latent factors from movies genres for enhanced recommendation. In: 6th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 249–252. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Symeonidis, P., Nanopoulos, A., Manolopoulos, Y.: Feature-weighted user model for recommender systems. In: Conati, C., McCoy, K., Paliouras, G. (eds.) UM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4511, pp. 97–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73078-1_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breese, J.S., Heckerman, D., Kadie, C.: Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In: 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 43–52. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., USA (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herlocker, J., Konstan, J.: Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender system. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22, 5–53 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adomavicius, G., Kwon, Y.: New recommendation techniques for multicriteria rating systems. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22, 48–55 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cremonesi, P., Turrin, R., Lentini, E., Matteucci, M.: An evaluation methodology for collaborative recommender systems. In: International Conference on Automated Solutions for Cross Media Content and Multi-channel Distribution, pp. 224–231. IEEE, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murakami, T., Mori, K., Orihara, R.: Metrics for evaluating the serendipity of recommendation lists. In: Satoh, K., Inokuchi, A., Nagao, K., Kawamura, T. (eds.) JSAI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4914, pp. 40–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78197-4_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vargas, S., ‬Castells, P.: Rank and relevance ‬in ‬novelty and diversity metrics for recommender systems. In: 5th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 109–116. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hurley, N., Zhang, M.: Novelty and diversity in top-N recommendation–‬analysis and evaluation. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT) 10, 14:1–14:30 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kompatsiaris, Y., ‬Merialdo, B., Lian, S.: TV Content Analysis ‬- Techniques and Applications Multimedia Computing, Communication and Intelligence. CRC Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smyth, B., McClave, P.: Similarity vs. Diversity. In: Aha, David W., Watson, I. (eds.) ICCBR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2080, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-44593-5_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bar-Ilan, J., Keenoy, K., ‬Yaari, E., ‬Levene, M.: User rankings of search engine results. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci Technol. 58, 1254–‬1266 (2007) ‬‬‬‬‬‬Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niemann, K., Wolpers, M.: A new collaborative filtering approach for increasing the aggregate diversity of recommender systems. In: 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 955–963. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McNee, S.M., Riedl, J., Konstan, J.A.: Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In: CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1097–1101. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ge, M., Delgado-Battenfeld, C., Jannach, D.: Beyond accuracy: evaluating recommender systems by coverage and serendipity. In: 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 257–260. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qiuxia, L., Tianqi, C., Weinan, Z., Diyi, Y., Yong, Y.: Serendipitous personalized ranking for top-N recommendation. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 258–265. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INESC TECPortoPortugal
  2. 2.School of EngineeringPolytechnic of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations