skip to main content
research-article

Novelty and Diversity in Top-N Recommendation -- Analysis and Evaluation

Published:01 March 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

For recommender systems that base their product rankings primarily on a measure of similarity between items and the user query, it can often happen that products on the recommendation list are highly similar to each other and lack diversity. In this article we argue that the motivation of diversity research is to increase the probability of retrieving unusual or novel items which are relevant to the user and introduce a methodology to evaluate their performance in terms of novel item retrieval. Moreover, noting that the retrieval of a set of items matching a user query is a common problem across many applications of information retrieval, we formulate the trade-off between diversity and matching quality as a binary optimization problem, with an input control parameter allowing explicit tuning of this trade-off. We study solution strategies to the optimization problem and demonstrate the importance of the control parameter in obtaining desired system performance. The methods are evaluated for collaborative recommendation using two datasets and case-based recommendation using a synthetic dataset constructed from the public-domain Travel dataset.

References

  1. Baeza-Yates, R. and Ribeiro-Neto, B. 1999. Modern Information Retrieval. Addisson Wesley, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bergmann, R., Richter, M., Schmitt, S., Stahl, A., and Vollrath, I. 2001. Utility-Oriented matching: A new research direction for case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the German Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Breese, J. S., Heckerman, D., and Kadie, C. 1998. Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bridge, D., G’́oker, M. H., McGinty, L., and Smyth, B. 2005. Case-Based recommender systems. The Knowl. Engin. Rev. 20, 315--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Brozovsky, L. and Petricek, V. 2007. Recommender system for online dating service. In Proceedings of Conference Znalosti.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleder, D. and Hosanagar, K. 2007. Recommender systems and their impact on sales diversity. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 192--199. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., Terveen, L. G., and Riedl, J. T. 2004. Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22, 1, 5--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hurley, N. and Zhang, M. 2008. Analysis of methods for novel case selection. In Proceedings of 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. 217--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Karypis, G. 2001. Evaluation of item-based top-N recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM SIGMIS, 247--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kernighan and Lin. 1970. An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. The Bell Syst. Techn. J. 49, 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Koren, Y. 2008. Factorization meets the neighborhood: A multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., and Schutze, H. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. McGinty, L. and Smyth, B. 2003. On the role of diversity in conversational recommender systems. In Workshop Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR’03). 1065. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. McSherry, D. 2002. Diversity-Conscious retrieval. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning. 219--233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mehta, B., Hofmann, T., and Fankhauser, P. 2007. Lies and propaganda: Detecting spam users in collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 14--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Nehring, K. and Puppe, C. 2002. A theory of diversity. Econometrica 70, 3, 1155--1198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Patil, G. P. and Taillie, C. 1982. Diversity as a concept and its measurement. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 77, 379, 548--561.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Reynolds, D. 1997. Comparison of background normalization methods for text-independent speaker verification. In 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., and Riedl, J. 2000. Application of dimensionality reduction in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the ACM WebKDD Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sean M. McNee, J. R. and Konstan, J. A. 2006. Accurate is not always good: How accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI’06). 1097--1101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Smyth, B. and McClave, P. 2001. Similarity vs. diversity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning and Development (ICCBR). D. W. Aha and I. Watson Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2080. Springer, 347--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Symeonidis, P., Nanopoulos, A., Papadopoulos, A. N., and Manolopoulos, Y. 2008. Nearest-Biclusters collaborative filtering based on constant and coherent values. Inf. Retriev. 11, 1, 51--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Vicente, L. N., Judice, J. J., and Pardalos, P. M. 1992. Parametric linear programming techniques for the indefinite quadratic programming problem. IMA J. Manag. Math. 4, 4, 343--349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Wang, J., de Vries, A. P., and Reinders, M. J. 2006. Unifying user-based and item-based collaborative filtering approaches by similarity fusion. In Proceedings of the SIGIR Conference. 501--508. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Xue, G.-R., Lin, C., Yang, Q., Xi, W., Zeng, H.-J., Yu, Y., and Chen, Z. 2005. Scalable collaborative filtering using cluster-based smoothing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Conference. 114--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Zhang, M. and Hurley, N. 2008. Avoiding monotony: Improving the diversity of recommendation lists. In Proceedings of 2nd ACM International Conference on Recommender Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ziegler, C., McNee, S. M., Konstan, J. A., and Lausen, G. 2005. Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web. 22--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Novelty and Diversity in Top-N Recommendation -- Analysis and Evaluation

      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

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!