Improving Tensor Based Recommenders with Clustering

  • Martin Leginus
  • Peter Dolog
  • Valdas Žemaitis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7379)


Social tagging systems (STS) model three types of entities (i.e. tag-user-item) and relationships between them are encoded into a 3-order tensor. Latent relationships and patterns can be discovered by applying tensor factorization techniques like Higher Order Singular Value Decomposition (HOSVD), Canonical Decomposition etc. STS accumulate large amount of sparse data that restricts factorization techniques to detect latent relations and also significantly slows down the process of a factorization. We propose to reduce tag space by exploiting clustering techniques so that the quality of the recommendations and execution time are improved and memory requirements are decreased. The clustering is motivated by the fact that many tags in a tag space are semantically similar thus the tags can be grouped. Finally, promising experimental results are presented.


tensor factorization HOSVD clustering 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Begelman, G., Keller, P., Smadja, F.: Automated tag clustering: Improving search and exploration in the tag space. In: CWT at WWW 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 15–33. Citeseer (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Comaniciu, D., Meer, P.: Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gemmell, J., Shepitsen, A., Mobasher, B., Burke, R.: Personalization in folksonomies based on tag clustering. Intelligent Techniques for web Personalization & Recommender Systems 12 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansen, P.: The truncatedsvd as a method for regularization. BIT Numerical Mathematics 27(4), 534–553 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang, A.: Similarity measures for text document clustering. In: Proceedings of NZCSRSC 2008, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 49–56 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kipp, M., Campbell, D.: Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: An examination of tagging practices. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 43(1), 1–18 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leginus, M., Zemaitis, V.: Speeding up tensor based recommenders with clustered tag space and improving quality of recommendations with non-negative tensor factorization. Master’s thesis, Aalborg University (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, M.: An introduction to genetic algorithms. The MIT Press (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rendle, S., Balby Marinho, L., Nanopoulos, A., Schmidt-Thieme, L.: Learning optimal ranking with tensor factorization for tag recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solskinnsbakk, G., Gulla, J.: Mining tag similarity in folksonomies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Search and Mining User-Generated Contents, pp. 53–60. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Symeonidis, P., Nanopoulos, A., Manolopoulos, Y.: A unified framework for providing recommendations in social tagging systems based on ternary semantic analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Leginus
    • 1
  • Peter Dolog
    • 1
  • Valdas Žemaitis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAalborg UniversityDenmark

Personalised recommendations