4.7 Article

A conditional random field recommendation method based on tripartite graph

Journal

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
Volume 238, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121804

Keywords

Recommendation algorithm; Graph-based recommendation; Conditional random field; Data sparsity; Tripartite graph; Diversity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The tripartite graph model in recommender systems can better handle data sparsity and cold start issues, improving recommendation metrics such as diversity, recall, and precision. Using the Conditional Random Field algorithm, potentially similar users can be identified, uncovering their preferences, and the random walk method further explores users with similar preferences beyond social relationships.
Recommender System (RS) has generated widespread attention with the aim of expanding different items. Among graph-based recommendation methods, the tripartite graph can better manage data sparsity and cold start, while improving the metrics of various recommendations such as recall, precision, and diversity. Existing tripartite graph-based methods encounter numerous challenges, including mitigating data sparsity, improving diversity, and capturing potential user preferences via social relations. To address these challenges, a Conditional Random Field based on Tripartite Graph (CRF-TG) is proposed. The tripartite graph consists of the user, item, and trust level. The method can mine potentially similar users, create probabilistic models based on TG, and uncover potential user preferences. Moreover, to mine the users with similar preferences outside the social relationship, the random walk method is used to test CRF-TG. Experiments are designed to verify the validity of CRF-TG. Compared to the others considered methods, CRF-TG gives a 15% increase on average in performance indicators such as diversity, recall, and F1.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available