Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving collaborative filtering’s rating prediction accuracy by introducing the experiencing period criterion

  • S.I. : Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaborative filtering algorithms take into account users’ tastes and interests, expressed as ratings, in order to formulate personalized recommendations. These algorithms initially identify each user’s “near neighbors,” i.e., users having highly similar tastes and likings. Then, their already entered ratings are used, in order to formulate rating predictions, and predictions are typically used thereafter to drive the recommendation formulation process, e.g., by selecting the items with the top-K rating predictions; henceforth, the quality of the rating predictions significantly affects the quality of the generated recommendations. However, certain types of users prefer to experience (purchase, listen to, watch, play) items the moment they become available in the stores, or even preorder, while other types of users prefer to wait for a period of time before experiencing, until a satisfactory amount of feedback (reviews and/or evaluations) becomes available for the item of interest. Notably, a user may apply varying practices on different item categories, i.e., be keen to experience new items in some categories while being uneager in other categories. To formulate successful recommendations, a recommender system should align with users’ patterns of practice and avoid recommending a newly released item to users that delay to experience new items in the particular category, and vice versa. Insofar, however, no algorithm that takes into account this aspect has been proposed. In this work, we (1) present the Experiencing Period Criterion rating prediction algorithm (CFEPC) which modifies the rating prediction value based on the combination of the users’ experiencing wait period in a certain item category and the period the rating to be predicted belongs to, so as to enhance the prediction accuracy of recommender systems and (2) evaluate the accuracy of the proposed algorithm using seven widely used datasets, considering two widely employed user similarity metrics, as well as four accuracy metrics. The results show that the CFEPC algorithm, presented in this paper, achieves a considerable rating prediction quality improvement, in all the datasets tested, indicating that the CFEPC algorithm can provide a basis for formulating more successful recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balabanovic M, Shoham Y (1997) Fab: content-based, collaborative recommendation. Commun ACM 40(3):66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ekstrand M, Riedl R, Konstan J (2011) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. Found Trends Hum–Comput Interact 4(2):81–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tobbin P, Adjei J (2012) Understanding the characteristics of early and late adopters of technology: the case of mobile money. Int J E-Serv Mob Appl 4(2):37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mahajan V, Muller E, Srivastava RK (1990) Determination of adopter categories by using innovation diffusion models. J Mark Res 27(1):37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalaï A, Zayani CA, Amous I, Abdelghani W, Sèdes F (2018) Social collaborative service recommendation approach based on user’s trust and domain-specific expertise. Fut Gen Comput Syst 80:355–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang X, Zhu W, Liu C (2019) Social recommendation with optimal limited attention. In: 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pp 1518–1527

  7. Mattila M, Karjaluoto H, Pento T (2003) Internet banking adoption among mature customers: early majority or laggards? J Serv Mark 17(5):514–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Martinez E, Polo Y, Flavián C (1998) The acceptance and diffusion of new consumer durables: differences between first and last adopters. J Consumer Mark 15(4):323–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Margaris D, Vasilopoulos D, Vassilakis C, Spiliotopoulos D (2019) Improving collaborative filtering’s rating prediction accuracy by introducing the common item rating past criterion. In: 2019 10th IEEE international conference on information, intelligence, systems and applications (IISA), pp 1–8

  10. Margaris D, Spiliotopoulos D, Vassilakis C (2019) Improving collaborative filtering’s rating prediction quality by exploiting the item adoption eagerness information. In: 2019 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence (WI 2019), pp 342–347

  11. Gama J, Zliobaite I, Bifet A, Pechenizkiy M, Bouchachia A (2013) A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM Comput Surv 1(1), Article 1

  12. Sun Y, Shao H, Wang S (2019) Efficient ensemble classification for multi-label data streams with concept drift. Information 10(5):158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahmad HS, Nurjanah D, Rismala R (2017) A combination of individual model on memory-based group recommender system to the books domain. In: 2017 5th international conference on information and communication technology (ICoIC7), pp 1–6

  14. Naz S, Maqsood M, Durani MY (2019) An efficient algorithm for recommender system using kernel mapping techniques. In: 2019 8th international conference on software and computer applications (ICSCA ‘19), pp 115–119

  15. Gong S (2010) A collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm based on user clustering and item clustering. J Softw 5(7):745–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Logesh R, Subramaniyaswamy V, Malathi D, Sivaramakrishnan N, Vijayakumar V (2019) Enhancing recommendation stability of collaborative filtering recommender system through bio-inspired clustering ensemble method. Neural Comput Appl 32:2141–2164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pham M, Cao Y, Klamma R, Jarke M (2011) A clustering approach for collaborative filtering recommendation using social network analysis. J Univ Comput Sci 17(4):583–604

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vozalis M, Markos A, Margaritis K (2009) A hybrid approach for improving prediction coverage of collaborative filtering. Artif Intell Appl Innov 296:491–498

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yang X, Zhou S, Cao M (2019) An approach to alleviate the sparsity problem of hybrid collaborative filtering based recommendations: the product-attribute perspective from user reviews. In: Mobile networks and applications, pp 1–15

  20. Zhang S, Yao L, Xu X (2017) Autosvd++: An efficient hybrid collaborative filtering model via contractive auto-encoders. In: Proceedings of the 40th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp 957–960

  21. Nilashi M, Ibrahim O, Bagherifard K (2018) A recommender system based on collaborative filtering using ontology and dimensionality reduction techniques. Expert Syst Appl 92:507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang F, Gong T, Lee VE, Zhao G, Rong C, Qu G (2016) Fast algorithms to evaluate collaborative filtering recommender systems. Knowl-Based Syst 96:96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zou H, Chen C, Zhao C, Yang B, Kang Z (2019) Hybrid collaborative filtering with semi-stacked denoising autoencoders for recommendation. In: 2019 IEEE Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, Intl Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, Intl Conf on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Intl Conf on Cyber Science and Technology Congress (DASC/PiCom/CBDCom/CyberSciTech), pp 87–93

  24. Hasan M, Ahmed S, Malik M, Ahmed S (2016) A comprehensive approach towards user-based collaborative filtering recommender system. In: 2016 international workshop on computational intelligence (IWCI), pp 159–164

  25. Chen T, Sun Y, Shi Y, Hong L (2017) On sampling strategies for neural network-based collaborative filtering. In: 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD ‘17), pp 767–776

  26. Margaris D, Vassilakis C (2018) Improving collaborative filtering’s rating prediction accuracy by considering users’ rating variability. In: 2018 IEEE 16th Intl Conf on dependable, autonomic and secure computing, 16th intl conf on pervasive intelligence and computing, 4th intl conf on big data intelligence and computing and cyber science and technology congress (DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTech), pp 1022–1027

  27. Koren Y, Bell R, Volinsky C (2009) Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. IEEE Comput 42(8):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Margaris D, Vassilakis C (2017) Enhancing user rating database consistency through pruning. Trans Large-Scale Data- Knowl-Centered Syst XXXIV:33–64

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wen H, Ding G, Liu C, Wang J (2014) Matrix factorization meets cosine similarity: addressing sparsity problem in collaborative filtering recommender system. Proc APWeb 2014:306–317

    Google Scholar 

  30. Colombo-Mendoza LO, Valencia-García R, Rodríguez-González A, Alor-Hernández C, Samper-Zapaterd J (2015) RecomMetz: a context aware knowledge-based mobile recommender system for movie showtimes. Expert Syst Appl 42(3):1202–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Margaris D, Vassilakis C, Georgiadis P (2017) Knowledge-based leisure time recommendations in social networks. In: Current trends on knowledge-based systems: theory and applications, pp 23–48

  32. Zarei MR, Moosavi MR (2019) A memory-based collaborative filtering recommender system using social ties. In: 4th international conference on pattern recognition and image analysis (IPRIA), pp 263–267

  33. Margaris D, Spiliotopoulos D, Vassilakis C (2019) Social relations versus near neighbours: reliable recommenders in Limited Information Social Network Collaborative Filtering for online advertising. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM 2019), pp 1–8

  34. Gama J, Zliobaite I, Bifet A, Pechenizkiy M, Bouchachia A (2013) A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM Comput Surv 46(4):44

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang Q, Wu D, Zhang G, Lu J (2016) Fuzzy user-interest drift detection based recommender systems. In 2016 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp 1274–1281

  36. Wang C, Chen G, Wei Q, Liu G, Guo X (2019) Personalized promotion recommendation through consumer experience evolution modeling. In: 2019 international fuzzy systems association world congress (IFSA 2019), pp 692–703

  37. Lo Y, Liao W, Chang C, Lee Y (2018) Temporal matrix factorization for tracking concept drift in individual user preferences. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst 5(1):156–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Margaris D, Vassilakis C (2018) Exploiting rating abstention intervals for addressing concept drift in social network recommender systems. Informatics 5(2):21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Margaris D, Vassilakis C (2017) Improving collaborative filtering’s rating prediction quality in dense datasets, by pruning old ratings. In: 2017 IEEE symposium on computers and communications (ISCC), pp 1168–1174

  40. Ma X, Lei X, Zhao G, Qian X (2018) Rating prediction by exploring user’s preference and sentiment. Multimed Tools Appl 77(6):6425–6444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen L, Liu Y, Zheng Z, Yu P (2018) Heterogeneous neural attentive factorization machine for rating prediction. In: 27th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, pp 833–842

  42. Sejwal VK, Abulaish M (2019) Trust and context-based rating prediction using collaborative filtering: a hybrid approach. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on web intelligence, mining and semantics, pp 1–10

  43. Li Y, Liu J, Ren J, Chang Y (2020) A novel implicit trust recommendation approach for rating prediction. IEEE Access 8:98305–98315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bell RM, Koren Y (2007) Lessons from the Netflix prize challenge. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 9(2):75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Felfernig A, Boratto L, Stettinger M, Tkalčič M (2018) Evaluating group recommender systems. In: Group recommender systems, pp 59–71

  46. AlEroud A, Karabatis G (2017) Using contextual information to identify cyber-attacks. In Information fusion for cyber-security analytics, pp 1–16

  47. Amazon product data. Available online: http://jmcauley.ucsd.edu/data/amazon/links.html. Accessed 4 April 2019

  48. McAuley JJ, Pandey R,Leskovec J (2015) Inferring networks of substitutable and complementary products. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD conference, pp 785–794

  49. MovieLens datasets. Available online: http://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/. Accessed 4 April 2019

  50. Harper FM, Konstan JA (2015) The movielens datasets: history and context. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 5(4):19

    Google Scholar 

  51. Margaris D, Spiliotopoulos D, Vassilakis C (2019) Experimental results for considering item adoption eagerness information in collaborative filtering’s rating prediction. Software and database systems lab technical report TR-19003, https://soda.dit.uop.gr/?q=TR-19003. Accessed 4 January 2020

  52. Lumauag R, Sison AM, Medina R (2019) An enhanced recommendation algorithm based on modified user-based collaborative filtering. In: 2019 IEEE 4th international conference on computer and communication systems (ICCCS), pp 198–202

  53. Cheng W, Zhu X, Chen X, Li M, Lu J, Li P (2019) Manhattan distance based adaptive 3D transform-domain collaborative filtering for laser speckle imaging of blood flow. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 38(7):1726–1735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jiang S, Fang S, An Q, Lavery JE (2019) A sub-one quasi-norm-based similarity measure for collaborative filtering in recommender systems. Inf Sci 487:142–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Korhonen J (2019) Assessing Personally perceived image quality via image features and collaborative filtering. In: 2019 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 8169–8177

  56. Cui J, Lu T, Li D, Gu N (2019) Matrix approximation with cumulative penalty for collaborative filtering. In: 2019 IEEE 23rd international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD), pp 458–463

  57. Fernández-Tobías I, Cantador I, Tomeo P, Anelli VW, DiNoia T (2019) Addressing the user cold start with cross-domain collaborative filtering: exploiting item metadata in matrix factorization. User Model User-Adap Inter 29(2):443–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Silva J, Varela N, Lezama OBP, Hernández H, Ventura JM, de la Hoz B, Coronel LP (2019) Multi-dimension tensor factorization collaborative filtering recommendation for academic profiles. In: 2019 International symposium on neural networks, pp 200–209

  59. Hassan T (2019) Trust and Trustworthiness in social recommender systems. In: 2019 World Wide Web Conference, pp 529–532

  60. Madani Y, Erritali M, Bengourram J, Salihan F (2019) Social collaborative filtering approach for recommending courses in an e-learning platform. Procedia Comput Sci 151:1164–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wu J, Chang J, Cao Q, Liang C (2019) A trust propagation and collaborative filtering based method for incomplete information in social network group decision making with type-2 linguistic trust. Comput Ind Eng 127:853–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Subramaniyaswamy V, Manogaran G, Logesh R, Vijayakumar V, Chilamkurti N, Malathi D, Senthilselvan N (2019) An ontology-driven personalized food recommendation in IoT-based healthcare system. J Supercomput 75(6):3184–3216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ren C, Chen J, Kuo Y, Wu D, Yang M (2018) Recommender system for mobile users. Multimed Tools Appl 77(4):4133–4153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Huang Z, Xu X, Ni J, Zhu H, Wang C (2019) Multimodal representation learning for recommendation in Internet of Things. IEEE Internet of Things J 6(6):10675–10685

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Dionisis Margaris

  2. Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of the Peloponnese, Tripoli, Greece

    Dimitris Spiliotopoulos, Costas Vassilakis & Dionysios Vasilopoulos

Authors
  1. Dionisis Margaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitris Spiliotopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Costas Vassilakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dionysios Vasilopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Costas Vassilakis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Margaris, D., Spiliotopoulos, D., Vassilakis, C. et al. Improving collaborative filtering’s rating prediction accuracy by introducing the experiencing period criterion. Neural Comput & Applic 35, 193–210 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05460-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05460-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation