The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks
Abstract
Recommender systems are becoming tools of choice to select the online information relevant to a given user. Collaborative filtering is the most popular approach to building recommender systems and has been successfully employed in many applications. With the advent of online social networks, the social network based approach to recommendation has emerged. This approach assumes a social network among users and makes recommendations for a user based on the ratings of the users that have direct or indirect social relations with the given user. As one of their major benefits, social network based approaches have been shown to reduce the problems with cold start users. In this paper, we explore a model-based approach for recommendation in social networks, employing matrix factorization techniques. Advancing previous work, we incorporate the mechanism of trust propagation into the model. Trust propagation has been shown to be a crucial phenomenon in the social sciences, in social network analysis and in trust-based recommendation. We have conducted experiments on two real life data sets, the public domain Epinions.com dataset and a much larger dataset that we have recently crawled from Flixster.com. Our experiments demonstrate that modeling trust propagation leads to a substantial increase in recommendation accuracy, in particular for cold start users.
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
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
Cited by
Structural Deep Network Embedding
Wang, D., Cui, P., & Zhu, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939753 · Cited by 2,845
(2012) · doi:10.1145/2365952.2365989 · Cited by 170
A Probabilistic Model for Using Social Networks in Personalized Item Recommendation
Chaney, A. J. B., Blei, D. M., & Eliassi-Rad, T. (2015) · Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/2792838.2800193 · Cited by 164
Learning Personalized Preference of Strong and Weak Ties for Social Recommendation
Wang, X., Hoi, S. C. H., Ester, M., Bu, J., & Chen, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/3038912.3052556 · Cited by 97
Self-citationMulti-faceted trust and distrust prediction for recommender systems
Fang, H., Guo, G., & Zhang, J. (2015) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2015.01.005 · Cited by 66
Modeling dual role preferences for trust-aware recommendation
Yao, W., He, J., Huang, G., & Zhang, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the 37th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research & development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/2600428.2609488 · Cited by 62
Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2015) · Synthesis Lectures on Information Security, Privacy, and Trust · doi:10.2200/s00657ed1v01y201507spt013 · Cited by 53
Neural graph personalized ranking for Top-N Recommendation
Hu, Z., Wang, J., Yan, Y., Zhao, P., Chen, J., & Huang, J. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106426 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Jamali, M., & Ester, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-09-26
- Pages
- 135-142
- OpenAlex
- W2135598826
- Cited by
- 1,632
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.54
- 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.