by the two axes. Therefore, user-specified ratings r
u',i'
(where u' ≠ u and i' ≠ i) lying
outside of the two axes are usually not used for the prediction of r
u,i
(e.g., in the
weighted sum (4)) in the traditional heuristic-based recommendation approaches.
1
Based on this discussion, we can generalize this two-dimensional heuristic ap-
proach to multiple dimensions as follows. First, we can generalize this approach by
introducing a two-dimensional distance metric between two arbitrary rating points
(u,i) and (u',i') in the entire User×Item space. By using the entire two-dimensional
space in the prediction process instead of just the data on the two axes (as shown in
Fig. 1) we will be able to (a) incorporate collaborative and content-based approaches
as special cases and (b) identify additional nearest neighbors that lie outside of the
User and Item axes and that were not even considered by collaborative and content-
based approaches. Arguably, by identifying extra nearest neighbors that were not
considered before, we should increase the predictive accuracy of recommendations.
The choice of a specific distance metric (Euclidian, etc.) depends largely on a specific
application domain. For example, one metric may work better for recommending
movies and another metric for news articles. Identification of appropriate metrics for
different applications constitutes an interesting problem for future research.
Second, we can extend the two-dimensional nearest neighbor approach described
above to multidimensional recommendation spaces (i.e., that include contextual in-
formation) in a straightforward manner by using an n-dimensional distance metric
instead of a two-dimensional metric mentioned above. To see how this is done, con-
sider an example of the User×Item×Time recommendation space. Following the
traditional nearest neighbor heuristic that is based on the weighted sum, the prediction
of a specific rating r
u,i,t
in this example can be expressed as:
)
)
)
()
,, ,,
,, (,,)
,, , , ,
uit u i t
uit uit
rk Wuituitr
′′
′′′
≠
′′′
=×
∑
(5)
where W((u,i,t),(u',i',t')) describes the “weight” rating r
u',i',t'
carries in the prediction of
r
u,i,t
, and k is a normalizing factor. Weight W((u,i,t),(u',i',t')) is typically inversely
related to the distance between points (u,i,t) and (u',i',t') in multidimensional space,
i.e., dist[(u,i,t),(u',i',t')]. In other words, the closer the two points are (i.e., the smaller
the distance between them), the more weight r
u',i',t'
carries in the weighted sum (5).
One example of such relationship would be W((u,i,t),(u',i',t')) = 1 /
dist[(u,i,t),(u',i',t')], but many alternative specifications are also possible. As before,
the choice of the specific distance metric dist is likely to depend on a specific applica-
tion. This idea is depicted in Fig. 2, where we have a three-dimensional recom-
mender system with User, Item, and Time dimensions, and where ratings, equidistant
from the rating to be predicted are schematically represented with concentric spheres.
The distance function dist can be defined in various ways. One of the simplest
ways to define a multidimensional dist function is by using the reduction-like ap-
proach (similar to the one described in Section 2), by taking into account only the
points with the same contextual information, i.e.,
1
In collaborative filtering systems, r
u',i'
may be used for computing the similarity between two
users, but it is usually absent in the weighted sum that represents the predicted rating.
8