skip to main content
10.1145/3340531.3412725acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Magellan: A Personalized Travel Recommendation System Using Transaction Data

Published:19 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present Magellan - a personalized travel recommendation system that is built entirely from card transaction data. The data logs contain extensive metadata for each transaction between a user and a merchant. We describe the procedure employed to extract travel itineraries from such transaction data. Unlike traditional approaches, we formulate the recommendation problem into two steps: (1) predict coarse granularity information such as location and category of the next merchant; and (2) provide fine granularity individual merchant recommendations based on the predicted location and category. The breakdown helps us build a scalable recommendation system. We propose a quadtree-based algorithm that provides an adaptive spatial resolution for the location classes in our first step while also reducing the class-imbalance across various location labels. Finally, we propose a novel neural architecture, SoLEmNet, that implicitly learns the inherent class label hierarchy and achieves a higher performance on our dataset compared to previous baselines.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3340531.3412725.mp4

mp4

59.4 MB

References

  1. Theodoros Lappas. 2012. Fake reviews: the malicious perspective. In International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems. Springer, 23--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Yuming Lin et al. 2014. Towards online anti-opinion spam: spotting fake reviews from the review sequence. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. IEEE Press, 261--264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tomas Mikolov et al. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3111--3119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sepp Hochreiter et al. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9, 8, 1735--1780.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ilya Sutskever et al. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3104--3112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashish Vaswani et al. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 5998--6008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaiming He et al. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Diederik P Kingma et al. 2014. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Xu Sun et al. 2017. Label embedding network: learning label representation for soft training of deep networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. T Imielinski et al. 1993. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Conf. Management of Data number 170035.170072. Volume 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Geoffray Bonnin et al. 2014. Automated generation of music playlists: survey and experiments. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 47, 2, 1--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Malte Ludewig et al. 2018. Evaluation of session-based recommendation algorithms. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28, 4--5, 331--390.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Stanley F Chen et al. 1999. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech & Language, 13, 4, 359--394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Haochao Ying et al. 2018. Sequential recommender system based on hierarchical attention networks. In the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruining He et al. 2017. Translation-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 161--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 2014. Yelp dataset. http://www.yelp.com/dataset_challenge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang Dingqi et al. 2019. Revisiting user mobility and social relationships in lbsns: a hypergraph embedding approach. Technical report. Université de Fribourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Yong Liu et al. 2014. Exploiting geographical neighborhood characteristics for location recommendation. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 739--748.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dingqi Yang et al. 2015. Modeling user activity preference by leveraging user spatial temporal characteristics in lbsns. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 45, 1, 129--142. issn: 2168--2216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mao Ye et al. 2011. Exploiting geographical influence for collaborative point-of-interest recommendation. In Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 325--334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Vincent W Zheng et al. 2010. Collaborative filtering meets mobile recommendation: a user-centered approach. In Twenty Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jean-Benoît Griesner et al. 2015. Poi recommendation: towards fused matrix factorization with geographical and temporal influences. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 301--304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Xin Li et al. 2017. A time-aware personalized point-of-interest recommendation via high-order tensor factorization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 35, 4, 31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Defu Lian et al. 2014. Geomf: joint geographical modeling and matrix factorization for point-of-interest recommendation. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 831--840.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramesh Baral et al. 2016. Maps: a multi aspect personalized poi recommender system. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. ACM, 281--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Quan Yuan et al. 2014. Graph-based point-of-interest recommendation with geographical and temporal influences. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 659--668.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Shuai Zhang et al. 2019. Deep learning based recommender system: a survey and new perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52, 1, 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Carl Yang et al. 2017. Bridging collaborative filtering and semi-supervised learning: a neural approach for poi recommendation. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1245--1254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hongzhi Yin et al. 2017. Spatial-aware hierarchical collaborative deep learning for poi recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29, 11, 2537--2551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Min Du et al. 2019. Pcard: personalized restaurants recommendation from card payment transaction records. In The World Wide Web Conference, 2687--2693.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Chen Cheng et al. 2013. Where you like to go next: successive point-of-interest recommendation. In Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Shenglin Zhao et al. 2016. Stellar: spatial-temporal latent ranking for successive point-of-interest recommendation. In Thirtieth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Qiang Liu et al. 2016. Context-aware sequential recommendation. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 1053--1058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang-Cheng Kang et al. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recommendation. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 197--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Shuai Zhang et al. 2018. Next item recommendation with self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06414.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Magellan: A Personalized Travel Recommendation System Using Transaction Data

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CIKM '20: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
            October 2020
            3619 pages
            ISBN:9781450368599
            DOI:10.1145/3340531

            Copyright © 2020 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 19 October 2020

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

            Upcoming Conference

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader