Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web - WWW '16 Companion 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2872518.2889405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explainable Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Filtering

Abstract: Explanations have been shown to increase the user's trust in recommendations in addition to providing other benefits such as scrutability, which is the ability to verify the validity of recommendations. Most explanation methods are designed for classical neighborhood-based Collaborative Filtering (CF) or rule-based methods. For the state of the art Matrix Factorization (MF) recommender systems, recent explanation methods, require an additional data source, such as item content data, in addition to rating data.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
63
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
63
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The similarity-based methods [1,2] present explanations as a list of most similar users or items. For example, Behnoush et al [1] used Restricted Boltzmann Machines to compute the explainability scores of the items in the top-K recommendation list. While the similarity-based explanation can serve as a generic solution for explaining a CF recommender, the drawback is that it lacks concrete reasoning.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The similarity-based methods [1,2] present explanations as a list of most similar users or items. For example, Behnoush et al [1] used Restricted Boltzmann Machines to compute the explainability scores of the items in the top-K recommendation list. While the similarity-based explanation can serve as a generic solution for explaining a CF recommender, the drawback is that it lacks concrete reasoning.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Collaborative methods can be divided into two models: the neighbourhood-based model (NBM) (Alqadah et al 2015;Xiaojun 2017) and the latent factor model (LFM) (Langseth and Nielsen 2015). Some of the most successful realizations of LFMs are based on matrix factorization (MF) (Yu et al 2017;Abdollahi and Nasraoui 2016;Bokde et al 2015). However, pure latent factor models suffer from several problems, such as poor prediction, sparsity, scalability, etc.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where R is the set of user-item pairs for which the ratings are available, 1 2 (||p u || 2 +||q i || 2 ) is an L2 regularization term weighted by the coefficient β, and λ is an explainability regularization coefficient that controls the smoothness of the new representation and trade-off between explainability and accuracy [82,83]. The idea here is that if item i is explainable for user u, meaning W u,i > θ, then their representations in the latent domain (q i and p u ) should be close to each other, or p u − q i is close to zero, in order for the objective function to be minimized.…”
Section: Explainable Matrix Factorizationmentioning
confidence: 99%