4.6 Article

Accurate and diverse recommendations via eliminating redundant correlations

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/123008

关键词

-

资金

  1. SBF (Switzerland) [C05.0148]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [205120-113842, 200020-121848]
  3. European Commission [213360]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [60744003, 10635040, 60973069]
  5. 973 Project [2006CB705500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, based on a weighted projection of a bipartite user-object network, we introduce a personalized recommendation algorithm, called network-based inference (NBI), which has higher accuracy than the classical algorithm, namely collaborative filtering. In NBI, the correlation resulting from a specific attribute may be repeatedly counted in the cumulative recommendations from different objects. By considering the higher order correlations, we design an improved algorithm that can, to some extent, eliminate the redundant correlations. We test our algorithm on two benchmark data sets, MovieLens and Netflix. Compared with NBI, the algorithmic accuracy, measured by the ranking score, can be further improved by 23% for MovieLens and 22% for Netflix. The present algorithm can even outperform the Latent Dirichlet Allocation algorithm, which requires much longer computational time. Furthermore, most previous studies considered the algorithmic accuracy only; in this paper, we argue that the diversity and popularity, as two significant criteria of algorithmic performance, should also be taken into account. With more or less the same accuracy, an algorithm giving higher diversity and lower popularity is more favorable. Numerical results show that the present algorithm can outperform the standard one simultaneously in all five adopted metrics: lower ranking score and higher precision for accuracy, larger Hamming distance and lower intra-similarity for diversity, as well as smaller average degree for popularity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据