Research on the Matthews Correlation Coefficients Metrics of Personalized Recommendation Algorithm Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
The personalized recommendation systems could better improve the personalized service for network user and alleviate the problem of information overload in the Internet.As we all know, the key point of being a successful recommendation system is the performance of recommendation algorithm.When scholars put forward some new recommendation algorithms, they claim that the new algorithms have been improved in some respects, better than previous algorithm.So we need some evaluation metrics to evaluate the algorithm performance.Due to the scholar didn't fully understand the evaluation mechanism of recommendation algorithms.They mainly emphasized some specific evaluation metrics like Accuracy, Diversity.What's more, the academia did not establish a complete and unified assessment of recommendation algorithms evaluation system which is credibility to do the work of recommendation evaluation.So how to do this work objective and reasonable is still a challengeable task.In this article, we discussed the present evaluation metrics with its respective advantages and disadvantages.Then, we put forward to use the Matthews Correlation Coefficient to evaluate the recommendation algorithm's performance.All this based on an open source projects called mahout which provides a rich set of components to construct the classic recommendation algorithm.The results of the experiments show that the applicability of Matthews correlation coefficient in the relative evaluation work of recommendation algorithm.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effectiveness of MCC has been shown in other scientific fields.
“The effectiveness of MCC has been shown in other scientific fields as well [43, 44].”
From The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation (2020) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 41
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- J. A. Konstan, B. N. Miller and D. Maltz, "GroupLens: applying collaborative filtering to usenet news", J. Comm ACM, vol. 40, (1997), pp. 77-87.
- J. G. Liu , T. Zhou and B. H. Wang, "Progress of the personalized recommendation systems", J. Progress of Nature and Science, vol. 19, (2009), pp. 1-15.
- B. M. Sarwar, G. Karypis and J. A. Konstan, "Analysis of recommendations for e-commerce", Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, (2000), New York.
- B. J. Dahlen, J. A. Konstan, J. L. Herlocker, N. Good, A. Borchers and J. Riedl, "Jump-starting movielens: User benefits of starting a collaborative filtering system with "dead data", J. (1998), pp. 98:017.
- Authors
- Liu, Y., Cheng, J., Yan, C., Wu, X., & Chen, F.
- Affiliations
- Tongji University (CN)
- Venue
- International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology
- Publisher
- Global Vision Press
- Published
- 2015-01-31
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-172
- ISSN
- 1738-9968 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2187848264
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 6.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (51174210, 2012BAH15F03, 2012AA062800, 51034003, 13ZR1443100)
- International Science and Technology Cooperation Programme
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Keywords
- personalized recommendation systems, Matthews correlation coefficient, evaluation metrics, Mahout, information overload, algorithm performance evaluation
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