4.5 Article

User profile as a bridge in cross-domain recommender systems for sparsity reduction

期刊

APPLIED INTELLIGENCE
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 2461-2481

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10489-018-01402-3

关键词

Cross-domain recommender systems; Recommender systems; Transfer learning; User profile; Matrix factorization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past two decades, recommender systems have been successfully applied in many e-commerce companies. One of the promising techniques to generate personalized recommendations is collaborative filtering. However, it suffers from sparsity problem. Alleviating this problem, cross-domain recommender systems came into existence in which transfer learning mechanism is applied to exploit the knowledge from other related domains. While applying transfer learning, some information should overlap between source and target domains. Several attempts have been made to enhance the performance of collaborative filtering with the help of other related domains in cross-domain recommender systems framework. Although exploiting the knowledge from other domains is still challenging and open problem in recommender systems. In this paper, we propose a method namely User Profile as a Bridge in Cross-domain Recommender Systems (UP-CDRSs) for transferring knowledge between domains through user profile. Firstly, we build a user profile using demographical information of a user, explicit ratings and content information of user-rated items. Thereafter, the probabilistic graphical model is employed to learn latent factors of users and items in both domains by maximizing posterior probability. At last prediction on unrated item is estimated by an inner product of corresponding latent factors of users and items. Validating of our proposed UP-CDRSs method, we conduct series of experiments on various sparsity levels using cross-domain dataset. The results demonstrate that our proposed method substantially outperforms other without and with transfer learning methods in terms of accuracy.

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

4.5
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