The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
fLDA: matrix factorization through latent dirichlet allocation
Abstract
We propose fLDA, a novel matrix factorization method to predict ratings in recommender system applications where a "bag-of-words" representation for item meta-data is natural. Such scenarios are commonplace in web applications like content recommendation, ad targeting and web search where items are articles, ads and web pages respectively. Because of data sparseness, regularization is key to good predictive accuracy. Our method works by regularizing both user and item factors simultaneously through user features and the bag of words associated with each item. Specifically, each word in an item is associated with a discrete latent factor often referred to as the topic of the word; item topics are obtained by averaging topics across all words in an item. Then, user rating on an item is modeled as user's affinity to the item's topics where user affinity to topics (user factors) and topic assignments to words in items (item factors) are learned jointly in a supervised fashion. To avoid overfitting, user and item factors are regularized through Gaussian linear regression and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) priors respectively. We show our model is accurate, interpretable and handles both cold-start and warm-start scenarios seamlessly through a single model. The efficacy of our method is illustrated on benchmark datasets and a new dataset from Yahoo! Buzz where fLDA provides superior predictive accuracy in cold-start scenarios and is comparable to state-of-the-art methods in warm-start scenarios. As a by-product, fLDA also identifies interesting topics that explains user-item interactions. Our method also generalizes a recently proposed technique called supervised LDA (sLDA) to collaborative filtering applications. While sLDA estimates item topic vectors in a supervised fashion for a single regression, fLDA incorporates multiple regressions (one for each user) in estimating the item factors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0307752101 · Cited by 6,049
Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning
(2007) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7432.001.0001 · Cited by 1,643
Cited by
Analysing User Reviews in Tourism with Topic Models
Rossetti, M., Stella, F., Cao, L., & Zanker, M. (2015) · Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_4 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Agarwal, D., & Chen, B.-C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-02-04
- Pages
- 91-100
- OpenAlex
- W2135505871
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.14
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.