评价推荐系统的性能:一个实验比较

François Fouss, M. Saerens
{"title":"评价推荐系统的性能:一个实验比较","authors":"François Fouss, M. Saerens","doi":"10.1109/WIIAT.2008.252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much early evaluation work focused specifically on the \"accuracy\" of recommendation algorithms. Good recommendation (in terms of accuracy) has, however, to be coupled with other considerations. This work suggests measures aiming at evaluating other aspects than accuracy of recommendation algorithms. Other considerations include (1) coverage, which measures the percentage of a data set that a recommender system is able to provide recommendation for, (2) confidence metrics that can help users make more effective decisions, (3) computing time, which measures how quickly an algorithm can produce good recommendations, (4) novelty/serendipity, which measure whether a recommendation is original, and (5) robustness which measure the ability of the algorithm to make good predictions in the presence of noisy or sparse data. Six collaborative recommendation methods are investigated. Results on artificial data sets (for robustness) or on the real MovieLens data set (for accuracy, novelty, and computing time) are included and analyzed, showing that kernel-based algorithms provide the best results overall.","PeriodicalId":393772,"journal":{"name":"2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"48","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Performance of Recommender Systems: An Experimental Comparison\",\"authors\":\"François Fouss, M. Saerens\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/WIIAT.2008.252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Much early evaluation work focused specifically on the \\\"accuracy\\\" of recommendation algorithms. Good recommendation (in terms of accuracy) has, however, to be coupled with other considerations. This work suggests measures aiming at evaluating other aspects than accuracy of recommendation algorithms. Other considerations include (1) coverage, which measures the percentage of a data set that a recommender system is able to provide recommendation for, (2) confidence metrics that can help users make more effective decisions, (3) computing time, which measures how quickly an algorithm can produce good recommendations, (4) novelty/serendipity, which measure whether a recommendation is original, and (5) robustness which measure the ability of the algorithm to make good predictions in the presence of noisy or sparse data. Six collaborative recommendation methods are investigated. Results on artificial data sets (for robustness) or on the real MovieLens data set (for accuracy, novelty, and computing time) are included and analyzed, showing that kernel-based algorithms provide the best results overall.\",\"PeriodicalId\":393772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"48\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/WIIAT.2008.252\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/WIIAT.2008.252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

摘要

许多早期的评估工作专门关注推荐算法的“准确性”。然而,好的推荐(就准确性而言)必须与其他考虑相结合。这项工作提出了旨在评估推荐算法准确性以外的其他方面的措施。其他考虑因素包括(1)覆盖率,衡量推荐系统能够提供推荐的数据集的百分比,(2)可以帮助用户做出更有效决策的置信度指标,(3)计算时间,衡量算法产生好的推荐的速度,(4)新颖性/偶然性,衡量推荐是否具有原创性,(5)鲁棒性,衡量算法在存在噪声或稀疏数据的情况下做出良好预测的能力。研究了六种协同推荐方法。包括并分析了人工数据集(用于鲁棒性)或真实MovieLens数据集(用于准确性、新颖性和计算时间)上的结果,表明基于核的算法总体上提供了最好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating Performance of Recommender Systems: An Experimental Comparison
Much early evaluation work focused specifically on the "accuracy" of recommendation algorithms. Good recommendation (in terms of accuracy) has, however, to be coupled with other considerations. This work suggests measures aiming at evaluating other aspects than accuracy of recommendation algorithms. Other considerations include (1) coverage, which measures the percentage of a data set that a recommender system is able to provide recommendation for, (2) confidence metrics that can help users make more effective decisions, (3) computing time, which measures how quickly an algorithm can produce good recommendations, (4) novelty/serendipity, which measure whether a recommendation is original, and (5) robustness which measure the ability of the algorithm to make good predictions in the presence of noisy or sparse data. Six collaborative recommendation methods are investigated. Results on artificial data sets (for robustness) or on the real MovieLens data set (for accuracy, novelty, and computing time) are included and analyzed, showing that kernel-based algorithms provide the best results overall.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effective Usage of Computational Trust Models in Rational Environments Link-Based Anomaly Detection in Communication Networks Quality Information Retrieval for the World Wide Web A k-Nearest-Neighbour Method for Classifying Web Search Results with Data in Folksonomies Concept Extraction and Clustering for Topic Digital Library Construction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1