SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Active Learning in Collaborative
Filtering RSs: a Survey
Mehdi Elahi
Francesco Ricci
Neil Rubens
August	2014	
Munich,	Germany	
1
Corresponding journal article:
Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey of active learning in
collaborative filtering recommender systems." Computer Science Review (2016).
Outline
¤ Introduction
¤ Cold Start Problem
¤ Active Learning in RS
¤ Conclusion and Future Works
2
Introduction
¤ Recommender Systems are tools that support users
decision making by suggesting products that are
interesting to them.
¤ Collaborative Filtering: A technique used to predict
unknown ratings exploiting ratings given by users to
items.
3
3
 4
2
 5
3
 ?
Cold Start Problem
¤ New User Problem: when
a new user has no rating
it is impossible to predict
her ratings.
4
3
 4
2
 5
?
 ?
 ?
3
 ?
2
 5
 ?
3
 ?
¤  New item problem: when
a new item is added to
the catalogue and none
has rated this item it will
never be recommended.
Active Learning for Collaborative
Filtering
¤ Active Learning:
¤ Requests and try to collect more ratings from the
users before offering recommendations.
5
Which Items should be chosen?
¤ Not all the ratings are equally useful, i.e.,
equally bring information to the system.
¤ To minimize the user rating effort only some
of them should be requested and acquired.
6
An Illustrative Example
7
Comedy	movies	
Si-Fi	movies	
Obscure	movie	
Zombie	movies	
Which Movie should be proposed to user to rate?
Definition of AL Strategy
¤ An active learning strategy for a Collaborative
Filtering is a set of rules to choose the best items
for the users to rate.
8
How an AL Strategy works
Item Score
1 151
2 44
3 7
4 1
5 42
6 34
7 9
8 55
9 20
… …
N 12
System computes the
scores for all the
items that can be
scored (according to
a strategy)
9
How an AL Strategy works
Top 10
items
Score
1 151
8 55
43 54
11 50
2 44
5 42
6 34
22 33
75 29
13 25
The system selects
the top 10 items
and presents them
to the simulated
user
10
How an AL Strategy works
The items that are
rated are added to
the train set
Rated
items
1
2
5
75
13
11
Classifying AL Strategies
A.  Personalization: addresses the what extent the
personalization is performed when selecting the list of
candidate items for the users to rate
¤ Two Classes of Strategies:
12
Non-personalized: are
those that ask all the
users to rate the same list
of items
Personalized: ask different
users to rate different
items – the best for each
user.
Classifying AL Strategies
13
Personalization Dimension
Corresponding journal article:
Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey
of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender
systems." Computer Science Review (2016).
Classifying AL Strategies
B.  Hybridization: whether the strategy takes into
account a single heuristic (criterion) for selecting the
items or combines several heuristics
¤ Two Classes of Strategies:
14
Single-heuristic: are
those that implement a
unique item selection
rule.
Combined-heuristic strategies
hybridize single-heuristic
strategies by aggregating
and combining a number of
strategies.
Classifying AL Strategies
15
Hybridization Dimension
Corresponding journal article:
Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey
of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender
systems." Computer Science Review (2016).
Non Personalized AL: Classes and
Sub-Classes
16
Non Personalized AL: Strategies
17
Example of Non-Personalized AL
¤ Single Heuristics:
¤  Popularity: scores an item according to the frequency of
its ratings and then chooses the highest scored items
(Carenini, 2003)
¤  Entropy: scores each item with the entropy of its ratings
and then chooses the highest scored items (Rashid, 2002
and 2008)
¤ Combined Heuristics:
¤  log(Popularity)*Entropy: combines the popularity and
entropy scores and then chooses the highest scored
items (Rashid, 2002 and 2008)
18
Personalized AL: Classes and Sub-
Classes
19
Personalized AL: Strategies
20
Example of Personalized AL
¤  Single Heuristics:
¤  Decision Tree Based: uses a decision tree whose nodes,
represents groups of users. Each node divides the users into
three groups based on their ratings: Lovers, Haters, and
Unknowns. Starting from the root node, a new user is proposed
to rate a sequence of items, until she reaches one of the leaf
nodes (Golbandi, 2011)
¤  Binary Prediction: scores an item according to the prediction
of its ratings (using transformed matrix of user-item) and then
chooses the highest scored items (Elahi, 2011)
¤  Combined Heuristics:
¤  Combined with Voting: scores an item according to the
votes given by a committee of different strategies and
then chooses the highest scored items (Elahi, 2011)
21
Pros and Cons
22
+ simple, fast, no training, serves users
with no rating, good for early stage
- less accurate, same items for all users
+ fast, benefits of multiple strategies
- flaws of multiple strategies, difficulty of
combining properly
+ accurate, different items for different
users, higher prob. of collecting ratings,
good for late stage
- complex, slow, needs training, cannot
serve users with no rating
+ accurate, great adaptivity to
condition of the system
- more complex, slowest
Conclusion
¤ We provided a comprehensive review of the state-of-
the-art on active learning in collaborative filtering
recommender systems
¤ We have classified a wide range of active learning
techniques, called Strategies, along the two
dimensions:
¤ how personalized these techniques are
¤ how many different item selection criteria (heuristics)
are considered by these strategies in their rating
elicitation process.
23
Future Works
2424
¤ To survey works that have been done in AL
for other types of recommender systems,
such as content-based and context-aware.
¤ To analyze active learning techniques based
on their applicability to specific application
domains.
Thank you!
25
August	2014	
Munich,	Germany	
25
Corresponding journal article:
Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey of active learning in
collaborative filtering recommender systems." Computer Science Review (2016).

More Related Content

Active Learning in Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems : a Survey

  • 1. Active Learning in Collaborative Filtering RSs: a Survey Mehdi Elahi Francesco Ricci Neil Rubens August 2014 Munich, Germany 1 Corresponding journal article: Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems." Computer Science Review (2016).
  • 2. Outline ¤ Introduction ¤ Cold Start Problem ¤ Active Learning in RS ¤ Conclusion and Future Works 2
  • 3. Introduction ¤ Recommender Systems are tools that support users decision making by suggesting products that are interesting to them. ¤ Collaborative Filtering: A technique used to predict unknown ratings exploiting ratings given by users to items. 3 3 4 2 5 3 ?
  • 4. Cold Start Problem ¤ New User Problem: when a new user has no rating it is impossible to predict her ratings. 4 3 4 2 5 ? ? ? 3 ? 2 5 ? 3 ? ¤  New item problem: when a new item is added to the catalogue and none has rated this item it will never be recommended.
  • 5. Active Learning for Collaborative Filtering ¤ Active Learning: ¤ Requests and try to collect more ratings from the users before offering recommendations. 5
  • 6. Which Items should be chosen? ¤ Not all the ratings are equally useful, i.e., equally bring information to the system. ¤ To minimize the user rating effort only some of them should be requested and acquired. 6
  • 8. Definition of AL Strategy ¤ An active learning strategy for a Collaborative Filtering is a set of rules to choose the best items for the users to rate. 8
  • 9. How an AL Strategy works Item Score 1 151 2 44 3 7 4 1 5 42 6 34 7 9 8 55 9 20 … … N 12 System computes the scores for all the items that can be scored (according to a strategy) 9
  • 10. How an AL Strategy works Top 10 items Score 1 151 8 55 43 54 11 50 2 44 5 42 6 34 22 33 75 29 13 25 The system selects the top 10 items and presents them to the simulated user 10
  • 11. How an AL Strategy works The items that are rated are added to the train set Rated items 1 2 5 75 13 11
  • 12. Classifying AL Strategies A.  Personalization: addresses the what extent the personalization is performed when selecting the list of candidate items for the users to rate ¤ Two Classes of Strategies: 12 Non-personalized: are those that ask all the users to rate the same list of items Personalized: ask different users to rate different items – the best for each user.
  • 13. Classifying AL Strategies 13 Personalization Dimension Corresponding journal article: Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems." Computer Science Review (2016).
  • 14. Classifying AL Strategies B.  Hybridization: whether the strategy takes into account a single heuristic (criterion) for selecting the items or combines several heuristics ¤ Two Classes of Strategies: 14 Single-heuristic: are those that implement a unique item selection rule. Combined-heuristic strategies hybridize single-heuristic strategies by aggregating and combining a number of strategies.
  • 15. Classifying AL Strategies 15 Hybridization Dimension Corresponding journal article: Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems." Computer Science Review (2016).
  • 16. Non Personalized AL: Classes and Sub-Classes 16
  • 17. Non Personalized AL: Strategies 17
  • 18. Example of Non-Personalized AL ¤ Single Heuristics: ¤  Popularity: scores an item according to the frequency of its ratings and then chooses the highest scored items (Carenini, 2003) ¤  Entropy: scores each item with the entropy of its ratings and then chooses the highest scored items (Rashid, 2002 and 2008) ¤ Combined Heuristics: ¤  log(Popularity)*Entropy: combines the popularity and entropy scores and then chooses the highest scored items (Rashid, 2002 and 2008) 18
  • 19. Personalized AL: Classes and Sub- Classes 19
  • 21. Example of Personalized AL ¤  Single Heuristics: ¤  Decision Tree Based: uses a decision tree whose nodes, represents groups of users. Each node divides the users into three groups based on their ratings: Lovers, Haters, and Unknowns. Starting from the root node, a new user is proposed to rate a sequence of items, until she reaches one of the leaf nodes (Golbandi, 2011) ¤  Binary Prediction: scores an item according to the prediction of its ratings (using transformed matrix of user-item) and then chooses the highest scored items (Elahi, 2011) ¤  Combined Heuristics: ¤  Combined with Voting: scores an item according to the votes given by a committee of different strategies and then chooses the highest scored items (Elahi, 2011) 21
  • 22. Pros and Cons 22 + simple, fast, no training, serves users with no rating, good for early stage - less accurate, same items for all users + fast, benefits of multiple strategies - flaws of multiple strategies, difficulty of combining properly + accurate, different items for different users, higher prob. of collecting ratings, good for late stage - complex, slow, needs training, cannot serve users with no rating + accurate, great adaptivity to condition of the system - more complex, slowest
  • 23. Conclusion ¤ We provided a comprehensive review of the state-of- the-art on active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems ¤ We have classified a wide range of active learning techniques, called Strategies, along the two dimensions: ¤ how personalized these techniques are ¤ how many different item selection criteria (heuristics) are considered by these strategies in their rating elicitation process. 23
  • 24. Future Works 2424 ¤ To survey works that have been done in AL for other types of recommender systems, such as content-based and context-aware. ¤ To analyze active learning techniques based on their applicability to specific application domains.
  • 25. Thank you! 25 August 2014 Munich, Germany 25 Corresponding journal article: Elahi, Mehdi, Francesco Ricci, and Neil Rubens. "A survey of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems." Computer Science Review (2016).