skip to main content
10.1145/2448556.2448580acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicuimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

More reputable recommenders give more accurate recommendations?

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 January 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Existing models of the Trust-Aware Recommender System (TARS) build personalized trust networks for the active users to predict ratings. These models have reasonable rating prediction performances, while suffer from high computational complexity. One solution is to utilize the global rating prediction mechanism for TARS, in which an intuitive assumption is that more reputable recommenders give more accurate recommendations. In addition, due to the scale-freeness of the trust network, some users have and continuously have superior reputations than others. However, we show via comprehensive experiments on the real TARS data that the recommendations given by recommenders with higher reputations do not tend to be more accurate. Furthermore, even the recommendations given by the recommenders with superior high reputations do not tend to more accurate. Our experimental study provides promising directions for the future research on the rating prediction mechanism of TARS.

References

  1. Yuan, W., Han, Y., Guan, D., Lee, Y. K., and Lee, S. Efficient routing on finding recommenders for trust-aware recommender systems. Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (ICUIMC '12), 2012, Article No. 29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Yuan, W., Guan, D., Shu, L, and Niu, J. Efficient Searching Mechanism for Trust-Aware Recommender Systems Based on Scale-Freeness of Trust Networks. Proc. of IEEE 11th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), 2012, pp. 1819--1823. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Yuan, W., Guan, D., Lee, Y. K., Lee, S., and Hur, S. J. Improved trust-aware recommender system using small-worldness of trust networks. Knowledge-Based Systems 23 (2010) 232--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Yuan, W., Guan, D., Lee, Y. K., and Lee, S. The Small-World Trust Network. Applied Intelligence (2010): 1--12, April 27, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Yuan, W., Guan, D., Lee, Y. K., and Lee, S. iTARS: Trust-Aware Recommender System using Implicit Trust Networks. IET Communications 14 (2010) 1709--1721.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Massa, P., and Avesani, P. Trust-aware Collaborative Filtering for Recommender Systems. Proc. Of Federated Int. Conf. on the Move to Meaningful Internet, 2004, pp. 492--508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Massa, P., and Avesani, P. Trust Metrics in Recommender Systems. Proc. of Computing With Social Trust, 2009, pp. 259--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Li, Y. and Kao, C.,. TREPPS: A Trust-based Recommender System for Peer Production Services. Expert Systems with Applications. 36 (2009) 3263--3277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Walter, F., Battistion, S. and Schweitzer, F. A model of a trust-based recommendation on a social network. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent System. 16 (2008) 57--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Massa, P., and Avesani, P. Trust-aware recommender systems. Proc. Of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2007, pp. 121--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jøsang, A., Ismail R., and Boyd C. A Survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision support systems, Vol. 43, Is. 2, 2007, pp. 618--644. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Watts, D. and Strogatz, S. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature, 1998, 393, pp. 440--442.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/Epinions_datasetGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. More reputable recommenders give more accurate recommendations?

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Amrinder Arora

    Predictive analytics has hit the mainstream, thanks to the emergence of many day-to-day consumer applications such as Pandora, Netflix, Yelp, and Epinions, all of which contain some variation of a recommendation engine. These engines (or systems) recommend items about which the user is more likely to have a favorable opinion. A special class of recommendation systems is the one in which a user likes (trusts) a reviewer. These recommendation systems then use the network of trust to predict what items the user may like. Such systems attain reasonable rating predictions, albeit at a cost of high computational complexity. In this paper, the authors seek to reduce the computational complexity of trust-aware recommendation systems (TARS). They hypothesize that we can perhaps reach a reasonable level of prediction accuracy by focusing on reputable recommenders alone. They define reputation by the distribution of the reviewer's recommendations being liked or trusted. The authors conclude that while the hypothesis leads to a much more efficient algorithm, the accuracy of recommendations is compromised greatly, thereby requiring the summary rejection of the hypothesis. The results are supported by extensive experiments on Epinions datasets consisting of many thousands of users and almost half a million trust relations. For research such as this, in which the authors try an alternative and report that the alternative method does not work, the value comes from our enriched understanding of the system model and the relationships between various components. Trust-aware recommendation systems are part of the family of recommendation systems that do not use the content of the item in the prediction. Rather, they use the similarity between the users and their mutual trust or liking factor to guide the ratings. That observation by itself can be interpreted in two contrasting ways: (1) a user who is trusted (directly or indirectly) by many others can generate more useful ratings, and (2) the reputation of a recommender plays no role for a user who does not like or trust the recommender. From this paper, it appears that the second interpretation is the more correct one, at least for the scenarios and datasets considered in this work. However, it may be interesting to consider the problem of the characterization of system models in which the trust "carries over," and those in which it doesn't. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICUIMC '13: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication
      January 2013
      772 pages
      ISBN:9781450319584
      DOI:10.1145/2448556

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 January 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate251of941submissions,27%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader