MIE 1513 Lab and Assignment 3: Recommender Systems (RecSys) solution

\$30.00

Category:

Description

Rate this product

1 Before and in the Introductory lab
In the introductory lab, you will be given an introduction to numpy, baseline recommendation
algorithms, and evaluation methods that will be crucial for completing Assignment 4.
The recommendation dataset we will be using is from a collection called MovieLens, which
contains users’ movie ratings and is popular for implementing and testing recommender systems.
The specific dataset we will be using for this lab is MovieLens 100K Dataset which contains 100,000
movie ratings from 943 users and a selection of 1682 movies.
Please download the lab from the course website and import it into Azure DSVM. You will also
same folder with the lab ipython notebook.
Complete all sections of the lab notebook. Understanding all parts will be critical for
• Why do we focus on ranking metrics? Recommendations are most often meant for human
consumption, where like information retrieval (IR), we focus on ranking metrics as a primary
metric of evaluation.
• Why do we measure RMSE of rating predictions? While our primary focus in recommendation
is on ranking, better RMSE scores on held-out data indicate better generalization of the
learned model and often better rankings (perfect RMSE implies perfect ranking, but good
RMSE is not required for good ranking – consider why). Unlike ranking, which focuses more
on high-scoring items, RMSE places equal emphasis on high and low ratings.
• How do we create a similarity function from a distance metric? Simple: 0 distance is maximally similar and maximum (or infinite) distance is maximally dissimilar. You just have to
find a function that appropriately transforms a distance to the proper similarity range (often
[0, 1]) – note that simple negation does not achieve this transformation.
• Why is the entry in my similarity matrix larger than 1? If similarities are not unnormalized,
this can happen. However, a similarity should never be negative – this is a clear sign of a
• Why are most of the Cosine similarity values zero? The cosine similarity is 0 for orthogonal
vectors with no common non-zero indices. In recommendation, this would be caused by two
users who never rated the same item, or two items never rated by the same user (depending
on whether you are taking an item-item or user-user similarity approach).
• Why do we need to keep the train matrix and test matrix the same shape? Because we identify
users and items by their row and column indices – these indices must be consistent and shared
between the train and test matrices.
• Why do we set test entries of predictions to zero if they are in training matrix? In short,
because train and test data should be disjoint – we only want to evaluate test entries that
were not trained on. Further, do we want to recommend you to purchase something you’ve
• Does this lab/assignment use state-of-the-art recommenders? State-of-the-art methods are
based on factorization and/or deep learning approaches, but nearest neighbor methods are still
competitive and often used in industry due to their ease of implementation and modification.
2
2 Main Assignment
In the introductory lab section, you were presented with code for data manipulation for the MovieLens data, recommendation evaluation based on RMSE and ranking metrics, and baseline recommendation algorithms consisting of (a) average user rating, (b) nearest neighbor collaborative
filtering based on user-user similarity, and (c) most popular items.
Please answer the questions below and provide IPython implementations in Azure DSVM. For
all questions that request quantitative comparisons, please report the 5-fold cross validation
average and 95% confidence intervals for the 5 predefined train/test splits demonstrated in the introductory lab. Note that most of the evaluation code is already provided in
CrossValidation, so you just have to fill in the recommender algorithms and subroutines and call
it to produce the results for each train/test split.
Q1. Data Preprocessing and Baseline algorithms
(a) Data in recommendation systems is usually encoded as data frame with three or more columns:
(user, item, rating, additional meta-data if present). Complete the function dataPreprocessor that takes the data frame, total number of users, total number of items and it should
output a user-item matrix as demonstrated in the lab. See the function comments for more
guidance. The following experiments will all use dataPreprocessor.
(b) In this question, we’ll port the baseline algorithms from the lab to our evaluation framework
for the assignment. To do so, you need to implement the two baseline algorithms (popularity,
user average rating). Please fill in the indicated functions(popularity, useraverage) in class
BaseLineRecSys; see comments there for more guidance. The rest of BaseLineRecSys
has been written for you.
Q2. Similarity in Collaborative Filtering
(a) In class SimBasedRecSys, there are two similarity measurement functions (cosine, euclidean). Please fill in the missing part of those functions. Be careful how you convert
Euclidean distance to a [0, 1] similarity for use in the recommender. This implementation
is very short and should use pairwise distance. (Google for “pairwise distance scikit learn”
for a list of distance metrics, more Googling will tell you what they mean.) Which metric
works better? Why?
(b) Implement an additional third metric in function somethingelse (your choice, see other
offerings of pairwise distance) and justify in a sentence why you think this could be a good
similarity metric for user or item comparison in collaborative filtering.
Q3. Collaborative Filtering
(a) Leveraging the user-user collaborative filtering example from lab, implement user-user and
item-item based collaborative filtering algorithms by filling out the predict all function in
class SimBasedRecSys. Note that you should implement vectorized versions of collaborative
filtering (example give in lab) since loop-based versions will take excessively long to run.
(b) Please use the given class CrossValidation to report comparative RMSE results (averages
and confidence intervals) between user-user and item-item based collaborative filtering for
3
cosine similarity. Can you explain why one method may have performed better? Consider
the average number of ratings per user and the average number of ratings per item when you
Q4. Probabilistic Matrix Factorization(PMF)
(a) In class PMFRecSys, please fill in the missing parts in function predict all:
• Initialize self.w Item and self.w User by sampling from N(0, 0.1) The shape of self.w Item
is (num item, self.num feat) and the shape of self.w User is (num user, self.num feat).
You can use use numpy.random.randn for this step
over small batches of data. Each batch of data consists of parallel numpy vectors of user
and item indices (remember that row and column indices are unique identifiers for users
and items). As part of this calculation, you need to compute the rating each user will
provide to the item in the batch. The rating predictions will go in a third parallel vector
pred out with size (batch size, ). The user and item indices for a batch are provided
and stored in batch UserID and batch ItemID. Please note that these ratings are mean
rating subtracted. That’s why when we calculate the rawErr, we need to add the mean
rating.
You can use np.sum and np.multiply for this step.
• We want to monitor performance during training so after each batch update we want
to compute the predictions over all training and validation data. After PMF training is
complete for each batch, calculate the ratings for all training data and validation data.
Similar as last part, we provide the indices for you. They are stored in train user idx,
train item idx, val user idx, val item idx. You can use np.sum and np.multiply for this
step.
(b) Hyperparameter tuning:
• We already provide an instantiation of hyperparameters for you to define a PMF model.
However, this model is overfitting when you train the model for 100 epochs. One way
of preventing overfitting is early stopping (i.e., terminating gradient descent before convergence criteria are reached). You can adjust the maxepoch to avoid overfitting.
• To see the RMSE plot for training, first set the test mode to True. After calling predict all, you can see the plot by calling plot error.
• Once you find the best maxepoch, remember to set the test mode to False, otherwise you
may get an excessive number of plots in Q5.
Q5. Performance Comparison
(a) Please use the given class CrossValidation to compare all the recommenders in Q1, Q2,
Q3 (using cosine similarity) and Q4 on RMSE, P@k, and R@k. Show the cleanly formatted
results of this comparison.
(b) Some baselines cannot be evaluated with some metrics? Which ones and why?
(c) What is the best algorithm for each of RMSE, P@k, and R@k? Can you explain why this
may be?
4
(d) Does good performance on RMSE imply good performance on ranking metrics and vice versa?
Why / why not?
Q6. Similarity Evaluation
(a) Go through the list of movies and pick three not-so-popular movies that you know well. I.e.,
do not choose “Star Wars” and note that we expect everyone in the class to have chosen
different movies. For each of these three movies, list the top 5 most similar movie names
according to item-item cosine similarity (you might use a function like numpy argsort).
(b) Can you justify these similarities? Why or why not? Consider that similarity is determined
indirectly by users who rated both items.
Q7. Testing with different user types
(a) Look at a histogram of the number of ratings per user. (Google for “scipy histogram”.) Pick a
threshold τ that you believe divides users with few ratings and those with a moderate to large
number of ratings. What τ did you choose? Evaluate the RMSE of user-user and item-item
collaborative filtering, but in each of the following two cases testing on only users that meet
the following criteria:
(i) Above threshold τ of liked items
(ii) Below threshold τ of liked items
For each of user-user and item-item collaborative filtering, are there any differences between
recommender performance for (i) and (ii)? Can you explain these differences (or the lack
thereof)?
5