2011 11th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops

Cross-domain recommender systems
Paolo Cremonesi∗ , Antonio Tripodi† and Roberto Turrin† Politecnico di Milano, DEI - P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Milano, Italy paolo.cremonesi@polimi.it † Moviri srl, R&D - Via Schiaffino, 11 - Milano, Italy {antonio.tripodi, roberto.turrin}@moviri.com general guidelines to drive scientific community towards a common comprehension of the problem and, thus, a generally accepted research development. For this reason, we identified and formalized a number of cross-domain scenarios, explaining for each scenario, which recommendations techniques are available. Most cross-domains scenarios can be managed with standard algorithms, i.e., algorithms not specifically designed for the cross-domain problem. We have implemented 6 state-ofthe-art collaborative algorithms that were studied and tested but most of them have shown poor quality in terms of accuracy metrics. Since with standard algorithms cross-domain recommendations are not likely to be created because of the little overlap between the different domains, a class of new algorithms that can be used to increment the possibility of generating cross-domain recommendations and improve their quality. This class of algorithms is based on the concept of closure of a similarity matrix. Experimental results were performed using the Netflix dataset, which has been artificially partitioned into two domains that share common users and/or common items. This allowed us to experiment several cross-domain scenarios and to demonstrate that the proposed relationships enrichment allows to achieve better results in terms of cross-domain recommendations. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section II briefly introduces recommender systems and provides an overview of existing cross-domain solutions. In Section III we formalize the cross-domain scenarios. Section IV describes some state-of-the-art single-domain and crossdomain algorithms used in our experiments, while the proposed family of cross-domain algorithms is explained Section V. Section VI presents the dataset and the evaluation methodology used in our tests, whose results are reported and discussed in Section VII. Finally, Section VIII draws some conclusions and future work. II. R ELATED WORKS The two most-known families of recommender algorithms are content-based filtering (CBF) - based on similarities among items’ features - and collaborative filtering (CF) based on correlations among user ratings [1]. In this paper

Abstract—Most recommender systems work on single domains, i.e., they recommend items related to the same domain where users have expressed ratings. However, the integration of different domains into one recommender system could allow users to span over different types of items. For instance, users that have watched live TV programs could like to be recommended with on-demand movies, music, mobile applications, friends to connect to, etc. This paper focuses on cross-domain collaborative recommender systems, whose aim is to suggest items related to multiple domains. We first formalize the cross-domain problem in order to provide a common framework for the classification and the evaluation of state-of-the-art algorithms. We later define a new class of cross-domain algorithms based on neighborhood collaborative filtering, either item-based or user based. The main idea is to first model the classical similarity relationships (e.g., Pearson, cosine) as a direct graph and to later explore all possible paths connecting users or items in order to find new, cross-domain, relationships. The algorithms have been tested on three cross-domain scenarios artificially reproduced by partitioning the Netflix dataset. Keywords-recommender systems; cross-domain; neighborhood-based; transitive closure

I. I NTRODUCTION Main goal of a recommender system is to suggest to users items that are most likely to meet their interest. But users usually do not have a single interest and their needs span across different application areas. A cross-domain algorithm is able to recommend items in domain B to users with ratings only in domain A. Domain A is referred to as the source domain, domain B is referred to as the destination domain. For this reason cross-domain algorithms are attracting more attention because they are able to suggest items that are not necessarily part of the same domain in which the user provided his/her ratings. A cross-domain algorithm must be able, for example, to recommend movies or books to users that have provided only their musical tastes. This paper focuses on (i) the formalization of the crossdomain problem, (ii) the analysis of existing recommendation algorithms, and (iii) the proposal and validation - by means of artificial cross-domain datasets - of a class of dedicated algorithms based on collaborative filtering. Since research on cross-domain recommendations is pretty new, the current literature does not provide sufficiently
978-0-7695-4409-0/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE DOI 10.1109/ICDMW.2011.57

in the case of CBF. As for the former. In the second case. [11] faced with the same problem via a probabilistic matrix factorization solved as minimization problem. Each source system estimates ratings in its own local domain and produces a probability distribution. also Pan et al. the integration of single-domain recommender systems has been explored in [6] by Berkovsky et al. UA . (ii) heuristic (the lists of items similar to the ones positively rated by the user are computed in the source domains and shared with the target domain). the cost function has six independent variables to be minimized individually. (iii) integration of single-domain recommender systems in order to improve the performance of a single target domain. the Smart User Model has not been described in detail. These pieces of information are projected in a common space based on a universal vocabulary and compared each other. and (iv) remote-average (target domain aggregates the recommendations computed in the source datasets). which propose four integration levels between multiple sources into a target domain: (i) standard (external source data are integrated into the target domain to enrich ratings). Finally. they proposed a probabilistic Bayesian framework in which inter-domain similarity is automatically learned and then an overall inter-domain matrix is created by applying link functions between domains in order to alleviate biases and skewness of data. Lee et al.we will focus on the latter. Tuffield et al. since it represents the most popular approach. whose complexity makes unfeasible this solution on large datasets. In the case of CF. I A = IA \IAB and I B = IB \IAB : sets of items “strictly” belonging to a single domain. We take into account two attributes: data overlap and recommendation goal. Association rules are learned on the basis of similar users’ (the user’s neighborhood) activity. [5] suggest to extract associative rules from users’ transactions history and to use them to recommend unrated items to the target user. The resulting optimization problem is quadratic and it has been solved via heuristic methods (projected gradient descent). and then to unify them into a Smart User Model by means of arcs representing the relationships between domains. Relationships among resources are represented by means of an oriented graph and recommendations are created through a graph-based algorithms based on Markov chains. calendar entries. Zhung et al. a consensus metric based on Shannon entropy is computed and a logistic regression function is set up in order to minimize the resulting cost function. P ROBLEM FORMALIZATION Without loss of generality. which is then transferred to a target domain in order to reduce sparsity problem. In the case all distributions are the same the consensus is maximum and the target system uses the recommendation values without any corrections. However. As for the first trend. (ii) profiling users’ interests by monitoring their behavior and their transactions via a web agent. Loizou’s Doctoral Thesis [2] identifies three main cross-domain research trends: (i) integration of single-domain user profiles into a unified cross-domain user profile. tags. Gonz´ alez et al. the cost function to be solved is not convex and for this reason heuristic methods need to be used. Similarly. ratings related to common users and/or common items act as a bridge among domains.. UAB = UA ∩ UB : set of cross users who have ratings in both domains. without a unified perception of the cross-domain problem. [9] [10] is that relatedness across multiple rating matrices could be established by finding a shared implicit cluster level rating matrix (referred to as Codebook). IB : sets of items. U A = UA \UAB and U B = UB \UAB : sets of users “strictly” belonging to a single domain. [8] used a similar approach to solve the so-called link prediction problem. making it typically impractical because most real rating matrices are very sparse. Zhang et al. RB : user-rating matrices. [13] worked on the sparsity problem. [4] propose to use the so-called Semantic Logger. which makes the approach unfeasible on large dataset. Research field in multi-domain recommender systems is relatively new and there exists a limited number of references.. We introduce the following notation: RA . we assume to work with two domains: A and B . In order to do that. However. Finally. that limits the feasibility of the approach in real domains. [3] suggest to create a User Model for each domain. URLs. In both Zhung and Cao works. Starting from a binary rating matrix (like/dislike) they transfer the knowledge in the source domain through matrix tri-factorization. Otherwise. III. UB : sets of users. Cao et al.. 497 . Several recent works integrate multiple systems in order to increase the density of a target rating matrix and to enhance the quality of collaborative filtering.) created or accessed by users. The idea introduced by Li et al. the kind of available information and their degree of overlap among domains strongly influence cross-domain recommendations. a metadata acquisition agent designed to unobtrusively capture any information (from email bodies. [7] addressed the same problem from a consensus regularization point of view. IAB = IA ∩ IB : set of cross items rated by users in both domains. (iii) cross-domain (the lists of similar items is shared together with the similarity values computed in the source domains). [12]. The Codebook is derived with computationallydemanding operations on a very dense source rating matrix. that is the prediction of potential links between users and items that are not actually connected. IA .

g. the largest domain dominates the other one (practically recommending items from a single domain). any CF algorithm is potentially able to recommend items in a cross-domain scenario [6]. There is no overlap between two domains. 498 . In this case.e. the other scenarios might be solved by aggregating all ratings coming from the two domains into a unified dataset and running any standard single-domain CF. • real cross-domain: this is the true cross-domain goal. The recent tendency of users to login with their social network account in order to access multiple Web-based services is increasing the popularity of this scenario. where two content providers share a common catalog of items (e. where some users have bought some DVDs and some books. cannot be properly considered recommender algorithms.. with limited coverage of the destination domain. i. since they have more common raters. This is the case. This is the case. In fact.g. for instance.g. full overlap. standard CF algorithms will be biased toward recommending items in the source domain. user overlap.e. IAB = ∅. see TopPop algorithm in Section IV-A). UAB = ∅ and IAB = ∅. In fact. items tend to be more similar to items belonging to the same domain than to items in the other domain. respectively. i. for example. the real cross-domain goal consists in recommending users in UA with items in I B . recommending items in IA to users in UB ). the genre of movies) can connect multiple domains. In fact.. standard single-domain CF can be used for generating cross-domain recommendations. item overlap. the aforementioned goals have no sense with CF due to the lack of common data.THE . UAB = ∅. it can be treated as well as the single-domain case. IAB = ∅ and UAB = ∅. ratings). dually. Figure 1.in domain B in order to improve recommendations. As for the recommendation goal. Cross-domain: it consists in recommending items in IB to users in UA (or. two IPTV providers broadcasting the same set of TV channels). item overlap. (i) if we assume to be able to aggregate the ratings collected in the two domains into a unique dataset and (ii) there is overlap among users and/or items. Collaborative overlap among users or items. There are some common items that have been rated by both users in A and B.. to: no overlap. The dual goal consists in integrating data from domain A into domain B and recommending items in IB to users in UB .e. in the case of a limited overlap between the two domains.e. There are some common users that have ratings in both domains... The two domains have overlap both among users and items. for instance. Thus. i. We can split this goal in two cases. which. avoiding that. however. we can distinguish between three main goals: Single-domain: it consists in recommending items in IA to users in UA . common features (e.ART ALGORITHMS This section describes a number of state-of-the-art CF that we have implemented in order to compare their crossdomain accuracy. user overlap.. ratings or correlations among items/user . However. and full overlap. as mentioned in Section III-A.. S TATE ..g. Formally. Collaborative information overlap Collaborative recommender systems are based on the set of ratings provided by users about items. where we would like to suggest to users new and unknown items.A. that are not likely to be retrieved by traditional single-domain algorithms.e.OF . Multi-domain: it consists in recommending generic items (IA ∪ IB ) to generic users (UA ∪ UB ). The main issue is the aggregation of heterogeneous items in a unique recommendation list. with the exception of the first case where there is no overlap at all. as illustrated in Figure 1: no overlap. In the following we will restrict the discussion to the case of collaborative data (i. non-personalized CF (e. In the following we will consider CF recommender systems and discuss the impact of information overlap on the recommendation goals. i. IV.e. Domain A is integrated with data . according to the set of items we refer to: • trivial cross-domain: this simple goal consists in recommending items in IAB ⊆ IB . In the following sections. The only exception is related to trivial. According to the overlap among users and items of the two domains under consideration. Note that. we can identify four different cross-domain scenarios. we will mainly focus on the real cross-domain problem and we will study how the quality of recommender algorithms varies according to the degree of overlap among users and items. The four scenarios refer.. The same considerations can be straightforwardly extended to users.

Each domain estimates the ratings by using the item-based ‘NNCosNgbr’ algorithm. for the sake of simplicity we will describe the problem from the item pointof-view.DOMAIN SOLUTIONS This section describes a new class of CF algorithms designed for multi-domain systems. In our framework. According to [14]. User-based CF algorithms (e. for performance and memory considerations.. state-of-the-art multidomain collaborative recommender algorithm.. [18]). V is the node set and corresponds to the set of items. The main idea behind the proposed approaches is to enhance inter-domains edges by both discovering new edges and strengthening existing ones. where k has been set to 200. weighted with the respective similarity values. NNCosNgbr). 499 . E ). Note that. As an example. where l has been set to 150. and E is the edge set. remoteAverageII. Associate with each edge eij is a weight sij . Single-domain We have implemented 6 single-domain approaches: two neighborhood-based algorithms (NNCosNgbr and PearsonUU). but the probability of finding users in UA similar to users in UB is small. PureSVD is the recent latent-factor approach described in [14] and based on the singular value decomposition (SVD) [16]. MovieAvg is a simple non-personalized prediction rule that recommends the highest-rated items.g. Finally.g. regardless the user ratings [14]. regardless the user preferences [17]. Figure 2(a) graphically represents item-to-item similarities related to the case with item overlap. the probability for a user in UA to be recommended with items in I B is small. Cross-domain The remote-average cross-domain algorithm described in [6] has been proven to outperform standard CF algorithms. In the following sections we present a family of strategies based on transitive closure to enhance such connections and discover indirect relationships. referred to as remoteAverageUU and remoteAverageUU. Therefore. We denote by inter-domain edges the connections between pairs of items belonging to different domains. weighted with the similarity values. Consequently. We have implemented both a user-based and an item-based solution. The proposed algorithms are a variant of standard neighborhood-based (either userbased or item-based) CF. which represents the similarity between items i and j . nodes are items and edges connect similar items) is connected (items in IA are linked to items IB and vice versa). single-domain collaborative recommender algorithms and a non-personalized algorithm. two latent-factor approaches (PureSVD and AsySVD). Rating prediction is computed by averaging the ratings expressed by similar users. and two non-personalized prediction rules (MovieAvg and TopRated): NNCosNgbr is a CF based on item-to-item correlations computed by means of the cosine similarity. We can use an item-based CF algorithm (e. items are described by a directed weighted graph G = (V .9000. The goal of the proposed algorithms is to create connections among items belonging to different domains. B. the final rating prediction is computed by averaging the ratings estimated in each single domain. showing a RMSE (root mean square error) on Netflix equals to 0. Only the k most similar items have been considered (in our work k = 200). Each domain estimates the ratings by using the user-based ‘PearsonUU’ algorithm.g.In the following sections we will first list some stateof-the-art. the final rating prediction is the average of the single domain predictions. A. PearsonUU is a CF based on user-to-user similarities which are computed using the Pearson correlation coefficient [15].. In accordance to the classical k -nearestneighbors approach. while Figure 2(b) shows the enhanced connections. Consequently. AsySVD is a powerful latent-factor approach presented by Koren in [17]. while setting the similarities between i and the remaining items to be zero. because there are few of them and their weight is low with respect to intra-domain edges. because of the limited overlap between the two domains. nodes are users and edges connect similar users) is disconnected (users in IA and users in UB are not linked together)..e. V. unknown ratings are treated as zeroes and rating prediction is computed by summing up the ratings received by similar items. only the k most similar items have been considered. Inter-domain edges are weak. we can keep similarities between each item i and its k most similar items. TopPop is another trivial non-personalized method that suggests the most popular items (with respect to the number of ratings). however users in UA can be recommended with items in I B if and only if they have ratings in IAB . respectively: remoteAverageUU. Users and items are represented in a l-dimension latentfactor space. While the following considerations can be straightforwardly extended to users. Again. similarly to other papers (e. C ROSS . • The user-based graph (i. PearsonUU) can potentially recommend to users in UA any item in I B . Unknown ratings are treated as zeroes. in Section IV-B we will describe a reference. Similar observations can be made in the case of user overlap (scenario 2). if we consider the case of item overlap (scenario 3 in Figure 1): • The item-based graph (i.e.

VI. given by users in UB to items in IB ). respectively. the ratings of domain A (i. The ‘union’ operator . by about 5600 users. while blank circles represent cross items that act as a bridge among different domains. 1 http://www. • we sort the list of 1001 items according to the estimated scores. However.18%: each user has expressed. showed in [14] that with this particular testing methodology recall(N ) = #hits/|test set| while precision(N ) = #hits/(N |test set|). Starting from the original URM’s ratings. on average. but only their specific configuration. Netflix has collected about 10 million ratings given by about 480 thousand users on 17770 movies. (1) has been adapted as follows. For instance. For our purposes.com 500 . Thus. referred to as URM (User Rating Matrix) and denoted by R. a rating we can be very confident to represent a very positive user interest) in the test set is tested as follows: • we predict the ratings related to item i and to 1000 additional items randomly chosen from the ones unrated by user u. on average. this pair of datasets is not suitable for exploring all the depicted scenarios. Original (i) and enhanced (ii) item-to-item connections.. Solid circles represent items belonging to a single domain.e. Ratings are expressed in a 1to-5 scale. We will refer to these enhanced algorithms as PearsonUUtransClosure and NNcosNgbr-transClosure. where sij is equal to either 1 or 0. Cremonesi et al. Z = max(X.has been replaced by the ‘maximum’ operator..: Strans = n∈N Sn (1) where ∪ is the union operator. If item i appears in the top-N recommendation list.e.. However. if there exist two direct links sab = sbc = 1. we can derive two URMs .denoted by RA and RB . while maintaining the original values for existing connections (since original similarities are generally stronger than derived ones). Experiments show that a transitive closure with more then two steps does not provide any sensible improvement in the recommendation accuracy. for the scope of this paper we have taken into account the large movie dataset used in the Netflix competition1 . [17] and used for evaluating top-N recommendations. on the basis of a testing methodology similar to the recent approaches described in [14].e. A. The maximum operator adds the similarities discovered for new links. This happens because our goal. DATASET AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To the best of our knowledge. artificially modified in order to simulate cross-domain scenarios. while increasing computational requirements. Let us represent the set of Netflix’s ratings in a userby-item rating matrix. 209 ratings. we have a ‘hit’. The only remarkable exception is the “Yahoo! Movies” dataset (from the Yahoo! Research Alliance Webscope program) which has about 3000 (out of 12000) movies overlapped with the popular Movielens dataset.e.e. transitive closure discovers all n-steps similarity paths between any pair of items). matrix S is represented by the weighted connections among a set of items.. respectively. the algebraic transitive closure of S is the union of successive powers of the original matrix. i. while each item has been rated.that represent. no public cross-domain datasets releasing user ratings are currently available for test- ing collaborative recommender algorithms in our use cases. We summarized recall and precision into the standard F-metric (at N ): F-metric(N ) = 2 · recall(N ) · precision(N ) recall(N ) + precision(N ) (3) In our study N has been set equals to 5 (real systems such as IMDB and Amazon usually show from 2 to 5 recommended items per page depending on their layout). The rating density (ratio between number of known ratings and number of possible user-item couples) is about 1.(a) original (b) enhanced Figure 2. the recommender system has been able to suggest an item that is supposed to be interesting for the user (since the rating is 5 out of 5). i. is not symmetrical. each rating rui = 5 (i. Transitive closure Given a binary relation S. The original test consists in excluding a percentage of ratings from the URM (test set) and using the remaining ratings to train the algorithms (training set). This approach has been used both for improving the user-to-user similarities computed by the algorithm ‘PearsonUU’ and the item-toitem links discovered by the algorithm ‘NNCosNgbr’.e.which is defined for binary relations . We have limited the transitive closure to 2 steps. Thus. The transitive closure discovers indirect relations among elements (i.netflixprize. since this matrix does not represent a binary relation. Once the algorithm has been trained with the ratings in the training set. Y) where the maximum matrix Z between two similarity matrices X and Y has been defined so that zij = max(xij .. the transitive closure allows to set sac = 1. yij ). S2 ) (2) It is interesting to notice that the connectivity properties of cross-domain CF recommendations are not symmetrical. given by users in UA to items in IA ) and the ratings of domain B (i. We have estimated the accuracy of recommendations in terms of F-metric. of recommending cross-domain items. we have computed the enhanced itemto-item similarity matrix used for predicting ratings as: S* = max(S.

Figure 3(a) depicts this testing scenario. Training set is defined by ratings in RA and in RB . it has ratings) in domain B (vice versa. test set for domain-A users (users in UA ) is formed by a subsample of ratings related to items in I B . Dually.. UA and UB have been composed by randomly selecting half users each.e. (ii) user overlap. for instance. an overlap equals to 20% means that 20% of items in domain A is also present (i.e. recommending to domain-A users items belonging to a domain where no user in A has expressed ratings (and. IAB = ∅). PearsonUU. Figure 3(c) refers to such experiments. as a function of the (b) user overlap (c) density Figure 3. The test test is represented by the black boxes while the training set is represented by the white and the striped boxes. Thus. For instance. or (c) relative density of the two domains. recommending to domain-A users items belonging to a domain where such users have not expressed any ratings). the training and the test sets.e. respectively. while keeping set UAB = ∅ (i. Density This last set of experiments is meant to verify how a difference in rating densities between the two domains can impact recommendations quality. we can simulate different cross-domain situations. so that there is no item overlap (i. so that a certain percentage of items is overlapped between the two domains. we have fixed the rating density of domain A. while varying the one of domain B . respectively. we evaluate the capability of the recommender algorithms in pursuing the real cross-domain. as shown in Figure 3(b). The three strategies are summarized in Figure 3 and described in detail in the following sections. sets IA and IB have been composed by randomly selecting half items each... respectively. For instance. the test set for domain-B users is formed by a subsample of ratings related to items in I A . the white and black boxes represent. User overlap This group of tests simulates scenario 2 and evaluates the quality of recommendations as a function of the degree of user overlap between domain A and B . by the white and the black boxes. we can state that 20% of items in domain B is also present in domain A). We have varied the percentage of user overlap between 0% and 50%. Again.. B. According to the way URM’s ratings are extracted to form RA and RB . Similarly. while test set is composed by a subset of original ratings neither in domain A nor in domain B .. In particular.e. R ESULTS In this section we discuss the results obtained in the three sets of experiments. in the case of tests with density equals to 20%. and remoteAverageUU). of the Yahoo-Movielens dataset pair). Domains have been defined so that the degree of item and user overlap is equal to 25% and to 0%. UA and UB have been composed by randomly selecting half users each. so that there is overlap between the two domains. We have varied domain-B density from 100% to 10%. and (iii) density. The tickness and density of stripes indicates the domain’s rating density. C. Because of the computational complexity and memory requirements of user-based CF algorithms [15] (i. Tests have been performed by varying the cardinality of set IAB . since domains A and B have the same properties. PearsonUU-transClosure. In particular. VII. The remaining ratings have not been considered. so that there is no overlap between the two sets of users. Item overlap This family of experiments simulates scenario 3 and tests the quality of recommendations as a function of the degree of item overlap between domain A and B . (b) overlap among users. while striped boxes represent training set. Similarly. for all tests (this is the case. Moreover. i. they have been tested on a subsample of Netflix’s users composed by the 1% of original users (while keeping the original number of Netflix items). Figure 4(a) reports the F-metric (with N = 5) of recommender algorithms in scenario 3. we implemented three testing methodologies: (i) item overlap. vice versa. A. 501 . domain B has been formed by randomly sampling the 20% of original ratings given by users in UB about items in IB . where training set and test set are represented. no user overlap). The described methodology has been adapted in order to test the accuracy of recommender algorithms in pursuing the real cross-domain goal (see Section III).(a) item overlap For instance. In such a way. an overlap equals to 20% means that 20% of users in domain A has also expressed ratings in domain B (and vice versa). where black boxes represent test set. We have varied the percentage of item overlap between 0% and 50%. Tests have been performed by varying: (a) overlap among items. Sets IA and IB have been composed by randomly selecting half items each.e.

06 0.09 0.6 0. NNCosNgbr-transClosure) when there is low item overlap.3 0. The proposed solution shows better quality also than the state-of-the-art cross-domain algorithm remoteAverageII.01 0 0.1 0.01 0 0..05 0.25 0. The good performance of the standard single-domain approach NNCosNgbr is interestingly increased by its cross-domain evolution (i.09 0.1 0.06 0.09 0.08 0. while the other algorithms reach their asymptotic F-metric between 20% and 35%. The quality of recommender algorithms in scenario 2 is reported in Figure 4(b) as a function of the user overlap between the two domains.5 0.e.03 0.1 F−metric @ 5 0.2 0.02 0. as expected since there is no user overlap. The latent-factor CF algorithms slightly improve their performance as the item overlap increases (e.9 0. [14]).1 0.users B Cross-domain F-metric (N =5) computed on NF by varying density of domain B.5 0. as already shown in previous works (e. MovieAvg TopRated pureSVD AsySVD NNCosNgbr NNCosNgbr−transClosure remoteAverageII PearsonUU PearsonUU−transClosure remoteAverageUU MovieAvg TopRated pureSVD AsySVD NNCosNgbr NNCosNgbr−transClosure remoteAverageII pearsonUU PearsonUU−transClosure remoteAverageUU 0.35 0.4 0.g.08 0.08 0.8 0.6 0. proving that the enriched item-to-item connections can effectively contribute in pursuing the real cross-domain goal.35 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.45 0.04 0.2 0. Note that.06 0.03 0.05 0. PureSVD passes from 4% to 6% F-metric).7 0.users A Figure 5. the item-based approaches show better quality than user-based approaches. computed on users in (a) domain A and (b) in domain B.2 0.3 0. (b) density .01 0 0 MovieAvg TopRated pureSVD AsySVD NNCosNgbr NNCosNgbr−transClosure removeAverageII PearsonUU PearsonUU−transClosure remoteAverageUU 0. as expected in scenario 2.5 % of user overlap (a) item overlap (b) user overlap Figure 4.1 0. Cross-domain F-metric (N =5) computed on NF by varying: (a) overlap among items and (b) overlap among users..07 F−metric @ 5 0.4 0.08 0. Among the neighborhood-based solutions.05 0.4 0.07 0.05 0. percentage of item overlap between the two domains.04 0.07 0.4 0.05 0.04 0.1 0.3 0.15 0. Among the neighborhood-based algorithms..0.04 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.7 0.01 % of item overlap 0 0 0.9 domain B − %density domain B − %density (a) density .8 0. non-personalized algorithms show a quality non depending on the overlap degree. TopRated has a quality comparable to the one of advanced algorithms. Also latent-factor CF is only slightly affected by user overlap. We can observe that non-personalized algorithms are scarcely affected by the percentage of item overlap. However. Again. the user-based solutions outperform 502 .03 0.1 0.02 0.45 0. their quality results generally lower than the quality of neighborhood-based CF algorithms.06 MovieAvg TopRated pureSVD AsySVD NNCosNgbr NNCosNgbr−transClosure remoteAverageII PearsonUU PearsonUU−transClosure remoteAverageUU F−metric @ 5 0.03 0.g.07 F−metric @ 5 0.5 0.

” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2001. Figure VII presents the F-metric of the third set of experiments. Springer. while the reference cross-domain remoteAverageUU reports a low quality. [14] P. ser. Riedl. vol. 12. Conati. H. pp. Tuffield. domain A and B have now different statistical properties. 131 – 137. New York. adviser-Srinandan Dasmahapatra and Paul H. Loizou. Springer. 39–46. Zhuang. “Transfer learning for collaborative filtering via a rating-matrix generative model. 426–434. K. Knowl.” in User Modeling. 2006. “Multi-domain collaborative filtering. Pan. [13] ——. G. N. 2005. ser. such as the Yahoo-Movielens dataset cited in Section VI. 55–64. USA. [6] S. International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces IUI’05. and remoteAverageII) are very similar. L´ opez. Interestingly. de la Rosa. and X. pp. K. ser. Eds. vol. Data Eng. ser. 285–295. “The semantic logger: supporting service building from personal context. “Web personalization expert with combining collaborative filtering and association rule mining technique. Shi. 2009.. Liu.e.” in CARPE ’06: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Continuous archival and retrieval of personal experiences.” 10th Int. C. The paper firstly formalizes the main cross-domain scenarios. NY.” Expert Systems with Applications. “Cross-domain mediation in collaborative filtering. on World Wide Web. “Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. “Recommendation on item graphs. As an extension of current tests.. 1119–1123. and D. the F-metric of PearsonUU-transClosure is comparable to the one of the best algorithms. and Q.” in KDD ’08: Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining.” in ICML. DC. “Transfer learning for collective link prediction in multiple heterogenous domains. 2007. Ricci. pp. we have split the results between users in domain A (Figure 5(a)) and users in domain B (Figure 5(b)). and R. pp. USA: ACM. Boutilier.” in Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 22. Wang.. Recommender Systems Handbook. B. 503 . [7] F. Karypis. 2010. San Diego. and P. USA: IEEE Computer Society. Eds. Xue. and T. Rokach. Reidl. Yang. while the density of domain-B ’s ratings has been varied. 3. [16] B. 2052–2057. 2010. H. yan Yeung.the item-based ones. pp. He. Kim. and F. Lewis. differently from previous tests. Li. pp. USA: ACM. UAI ’10. On the other hand. 617–624. [4] M. ongoing experiments are meant to analyze the algorithms on real cross-domain datasets. the recalls of the three item-based solutions (NNCosNgbr. R EFERENCES [1] F. [11] Y. Finally. L. Konstan. and Z. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. “How to recommend music to film buffs: enabling the provision of recommendations from multiple domains. pp. L. no. Cao. W.. and G. Washington. evaluated on a multi-domain dataset artificially created.” in IJCAI. Ricci. Ma. S. Ed. Thus. pp. IJCAI ’11. B. “Transfer learning to predict missing ratings via heterogeneous user feedbacks. Shapira. N.” Ph. New York. B. 2001. Q. 2006. Paliouras. pp. L. The NNCosNgbr and our crossdomain solution (NNCosNgbr-transClosure) reaches acceptable performance only with density of domain B higher than 70%. ser. Q. “Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model. Karypis. A. “Cross-domain learning from multiple sources: A consensus regularization perspective.. AAAI ’10. F. though not yet extensively considered. J. Loizou. [17] Y. 2010. USA: ACM. M. and J. Recommendations for domain-A users (i. Application of Dimensionality Reduction in Recommender System-A Case Study. Kuflik. [12] W. Y. H. 2009. 2011.e. users with many ratings are recommended items belonging to a domain with a limited number of ratings) have the highest performance with the removeAverageII algorithm when the density of the two dataset is unbalanced. and then contributes with a new family of crossdomain algorithms. and P. Yang. 2009. Xiong. B.” in Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. C. Y. 2000. Sarwar. Cao. “Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. PearsonUU-transClosure) shows the best F-metric. “Transfer learning in collaborative filtering for sparsity reduction. N. no. McCoy. NNCosNgbrtransClosure..” IEEE Trans. NY. vol. when we consider domainB users (i. 2011. VIII.” in RecSys. Li. 1664–1678. California. and D. Yang. Konstan. Dupplaw. Turrin. Lee. T. E.” in Proceedings of Workshop Beyond Personalization 2005: The Next Stage of Recommender Systems Research. users with few ratings are recommended items belonging to a domain rich of ratings). 159–166. and J. 355–359. pp. Xiang. [15] B. NY. Liu. Yang. Koren. pp. [18] F. 2010. C ONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS Cross-domain recommender systems are recognized to have a potential interest. 2008. the cross-domain solution we have proposed in this work (i. ICDM ’06. ICML ’09. J.” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Data Mining.” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. [8] B. Again. Kantor. and Q. where the rating density of domain-A has been kept constant.e. Rhee. Sarwar. [10] ——. G. Y. [5] C. ser. 2010. and J. [3] G. Berkovsky. N. dissertation. For such reason. Xiong. New York. 21. “Can movies and books collaborate? cross-domain collaborative filtering for sparsity reduction. Defense Technical Information Center. Gonz´ alez. Koren. Luo. [2] A. 4511. Zhang. “A multi-agent smart user model for cross-domain recommender systems. Cremonesi. [9] B. Conf. P..D.