4.7 Article

M-BPR: A novel approach to improving BPR for recommendation with multi-type pair-wise preferences

Journal

INFORMATION SCIENCES
Volume 547, Issue -, Pages 255-270

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.08.027

Keywords

Recommender systems; One-class collaborative filtering; Bayesian personalized ranking; Pair-wise preferences

Funding

  1. Samsung Research Funding & Incubation Center of Samsung Electronics [SRFC-IT1901-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines the assumptions of the BPR method and proposes a new method called M-BPR to address the problems identified. Through experiments using real datasets, it is demonstrated that M-BPR effectively outperforms seven state-of-the-art OCCF methods.
In this paper, we examine the two assumptions of the Bayesian personalized ranking (BPR), a well-known pair-wise method for one-class collaborative filtering (OCCF): (1) a user with the same degree of negative preferences for all her unrated items; and (2) a user always preferring her rated items to all her unrated items. We claim that (A1) and (A2) cause recommendation errors because they do not always hold in practice. To address these problems, we first define fine-grained multi-type pair-wise preferences (PPs), which are more sophisticated than the single-type PP used in BPR. Then, we propose a novel pair-wise approach called M-BPR, which exploits multi-type PPs together in learning users' more detailed preferences. Furthermore, we refine M-BPR by employing the concept of item groups to reduce the uncertainty of a user's a single item-level preference. Through extensive experiments using four real-life datasets, we demonstrate that our approach addresses the problems of the original BPR effectively and also outperforms seven state-of-the-art OCCF (i.e., four pair-wise and three point-wise) methods significantly. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available