skip to main content
10.1145/502585.502627acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Evaluation of Item-Based Top-N Recommendation Algorithms

Published:05 October 2001Publication History

ABSTRACT

The explosive growth of the world-wide-web and the emergence of e-commerce has led to the development of recommender systems---a personalized information filtering technology used to identify a set of N items that will be of interest to a certain user. User-based Collaborative filtering is the most successful technology for building recommender systems to date, and is extensively used in many commercial recommender systems. Unfortunately, the computational complexity of these methods grows linearly with the number of customers that in typical commercial applications can grow to be several millions. To address these scalability concerns item-based recommendation techniques have been developed that analyze the user-item matrix to identify relations between the different items, and use these relations to compute the list of recommendations.In this paper we present one such class of item-based recommendation algorithms that first determine the similarities between the various items and then used them to identify the set of items to be recommended. The key steps in this class of algorithms are (i) the method used to compute the similarity between the items, and (ii) the method used to combine these similarities in order to compute the similarity between a basket of items and a candidate recommender item. Our experimental evaluation on five different datasets show that the proposed item-based algorithms are up to 28 times faster than the traditional user-neighborhood based recommender systems and provide recommendations whose quality is up to 27% better.

References

  1. Marko Balabanovic and Yoav Shoham. FAB: Content-based collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM, 40(3), March 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Chumki Basu, Haym Hirsh, and William Cohen. Recommendation as classification: Using social and content-based information in recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1998 Workshop on Recommender Systems, pages 11--15. AAAI Press, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Doug Beeferman and Adam Berger. Agglomerative clustering of a search engine query log. In Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD International Conference, pages 407--415, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Billsus and M. J. Pazzani. Learning collaborative information filters. In Proceedings of ICML, pages 46--53, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Chan. A non-invasive learning approach to building web user profiles. In Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD International Conference, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. N. Good, J. Scafer, J. Konstan, A. Borchers, B. Sarwar, J. Herlocker, and J. Riedl. Combining collaborative filtering with personal agents for better recommendations. In Proceedings of AAAI, pages 439--446. AAAI Press, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. W. Hill, L. Stead, M. Rosenstein, and G. Furnas. Recommending and evaluating choices in a virtual community of use. In Proceedings of CHI, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Brendan Kitts, David Freed, and Martin Vrieze. Cross-sell: A fast promotion-tunable customer-item recommendation method based on conditional independent probabilities. In Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD International Conference, pages 437--446, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Konstan, B. Miller, D. Maltz, J. Herlocker, L. Gordon, and J. Riedl. GroupLens: Applying collaborative filtering to Usenet news. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):77--87, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bamshad Mobasher, Honghua Dai, Tao Luo, Miki Nakagawa, and Jim Witshire. Discovery of aggregate usage profiles for web personalization. In Proceedings of the WebKDD Workshop, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Resnick and Varian. Recommender systems. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):56--58, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom, and J. Riedl. GroupLens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In Proceedings of CSCW, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. John s. Breese, David Heckerman, and Carl Kadie. Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 14th conference on Uncertaintly in Artificial Intelligence, pages 43--52, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Salton. Automatic Text Processing: The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl. Analysis of recommendation algorithms for e-commerce. In Proceedings of ACM E-Commerce, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl. Application of dimensionality reduction in recommender systems--a case study. In ACM WebKDD Workshop, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. J. Schafer, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl. Recommender systems in e-commerce. In Proceedings of ACM E-Commerce, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Upendra Shardanand and Patti Maes. Social information filtering: Algorithms for automating "word of mouth". In Proceedings of the ACM CHI'95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 210--217, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Loren Terveen, Will Hill, Brian Amento, David McDonald, and Josh Creter. PHOAKS: A system for sharing recommendations. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):59--62, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lyle H. Ungar and Dean P. Foster. Clustering methods for collaborative filtering. In Workshop on Recommendation Systems at the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. wolf, C. Aggarwal, K. Wu, and P. Yu. Horting hatches and egg: A new graph-theoretic approach to collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluation of Item-Based Top-N Recommendation Algorithms

            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 '01: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management
              October 2001
              616 pages
              ISBN:1581134363
              DOI:10.1145/502585

              Copyright © 2001 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 ACM 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: 5 October 2001

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • 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