[[
wikihub
]]
Search
⌘K
Explore
People
For Agents
Sign in
Explore
People
For Agents
Sign in
@jemoka / Jemoka Knowledge Base / raw/concept/kbhrecommender_system.md
Suggest edit
Cancel
Submit suggestion
Title
Name
Note
--- title: "Recommender System" source: https://www.jemoka.com/posts/kbhrecommender_system/ --- Recommender System is a system that provide recommendations due to search; it combines Information Retrival with another goal: Editorial/Hand-Curated lists: “list of favorites”, “essential items”, etc. Aggregates: top 10 lists, most popular, recent uploads (hardest) Individual tailors: user-based recommendation Formal Model \(X\) the set of users \(S\) the set of things to recommend \(R\) the set of distinct and totally ordered ratings (stars 1-5, real number 0-1, etc.) Utility function: \(U:X \times S \to R\) (“how much Three key problems: obtain \(U\) as much as possible, leaving something blank extrapolate blank entries in \(U\) which maybe high (“recommend something”) evaluate our recommendation method obtaining \(U\) ask people (rate!) implicit signals (buying book, picking song, watching video, etc.)—this will create a binary matrix extrapolating \(U\) \(U\) is sparse (people can’t rate everything). Cold Start problem: new items have no ratings new users have no history Three Main Approaches: content based filtering Recommend \(s\) to \(x\) if \(s \sim s’\) based on content where \(s’\) is already rated highly by \(x\) (“if the user likes Jazz, given them more Jazz”) create profile of each item (movie: genre, actor, years; lexicon: important words by TF-IDF; etc) create profile of user, say by averaging ratings of the things the user marked as high cosine similarity Advantages: no need for data on other users (no user sparsity) able to tailor to unique tastes able to recommend new and unpopular things transparent Disadvantages: need to build a profile for user overspecialization (never recommend outside of user’s preferences) unable to exploit other users’ judgments finding good features is hard collaborative filtering Instead of using content features of items to recommend, we find user instead. user-user collaborative filtering Consider a user \(x\), and some set of unrated items \(i\). Let’s find \(N\) other users with similar ratings: 1) find similar users and 2) recommend items they like. Then, we estimate \(x\)’s ratings for \(i\) based on the similar users’ ratings for \(i\). problem because the sparsity of the user vectors which we treat as \(0\), cosine gets confused. Cosine doesn’t really capture the “oppositeness” of a 5 star vs a 1 star rating. solution: mean center each user—subtracting each user’s score from their mean rating (ignoring missing values, and do not subtract anything to the missing values). This allows opposite opinions to have opposite signs as well. sparsity we prevent computing values for which one user does not rate; as in, we chop the vectors such that the comparison between \(x\) and \(x_{n} \in X\) are both dense (i.e. if one of the two users don’t rate something, we do not include that in the vector). after this, we can compute our normal cosine similarity; remember to normalise. prediction finally, after we got our \(N\), we can return our prediction for \(I\) either based on an average score of the similar users retrieved in \(N\) or average weighted of scores in \(N\) weighted by similarity to our target user \(x\). \begin{equation} r_{xi} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{}^{} r_{yi} \end{equation} or \begin{equation} r_{xi} = \sum_{}^{} \frac{sim(x,y) r_{yi}}{sim(x,y)} \end{equation} item-item collaborative filtering For item \(i\), we want to find other similar items to our item \(i\), and average the user’s own ratings on those similar items onto \(i\). this tends to work better because items are easier to classify than users. problem cold start (we need initial data to seed the rating) sparsity (user ratings are sparse) popularity bias—creates filter bubbles and hard to generalize over unique tastes latent factor (neural) systems represent each video and user as an embedding collaborative filtering. YouTube obtains this embedding by predicting what video user is going to watch evaluation RMSE between held out ratings: \begin{equation} \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{xi}^{}(r_{xi} - r^{*}_{xi})^{2}}{N}} \end{equation}