# Recommender Systems - Class Review

Last updated on：2 months ago

Recommender systems are powerful tools to effectively predict people’s taste. Thus, it has huge business value for advertisers.

# Notation

**eg. predicting movies rating**

$n_u$ No. of users

$n_m$ no. movies

$r(i,j) = 1$ if user j has rated movie i

$y^{(i,j)}$ rating given by user j to movie i (defined only if $r(i,j) = 1$)

$i:r(i,j) = 1$ means: for each each j, all i when $r(i,j) = 1$.

$j:r(i,j) = 1$ means: for each each i, all j when $r(i,j) = 1$.

$(i,j):r(i,j) = 1$ means: all (i,j) when $r(i,j) = 1$.

# Content-based recommendations

**Distract movie’s feature vectors**

$\theta^{(j)}$ parameter vector for user *j*

$x^{(i)}$ feature vector for movie *i*

For user *j*, movie *i*, predicted rating: $( \theta^{(j)} )^T x^{(i)}$.

$m^{(j)}$ No. of movies rated by user j

## To learn $\theta$

Given $x^{(1)}, x^{(2)}, …, x^{(n_m)}$ and movie ratings, can estimate $\theta^{(1)}, \theta^{(2)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}$.

**To learn $\theta^{(j)}$**

$$\min_{\theta^{(j)}}\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i:r(i,j) = 1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) ^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2} \sum^n_{k=1} ( \theta^{j}_k) ^2$$

**To learn $\theta^{(1)}, \theta^{(2)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}$**

$$\min_{\theta^{(1)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}} \frac{1}{2} \sum^{n_u}_{j=1} \sum_{i:r(i,j) = 1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) ^2 + $$

$$\frac{\lambda}{2} \sum^{n_u}_{j=1} \sum^n_{k=1} ( \theta^{j}_k) ^2$$

**Gradient descent update**

When $k = 0$,

$$\theta_k^{(j)}:= \theta_k^{(j)} - \alpha \sum_{i:r(i,j)=1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) x_k^{(i)}$$

When $k 1$,

$$\theta_k^{(j)}:= \theta_k^{(j)} - \alpha ( \sum_{i:r(i,j)=1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) x_k^{(i)} + \lambda \theta_k^{(j)})$$

## To learn $x^{(i)}$

Given $\theta^{(1)}, \theta^{(2)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}$, can estimate $x^{(1)}, x^{(2)}, …, x^{(n_m)}$.

**To learn $x^{(i)}$**

$$\min_{x^{(j)}}\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j:r(i,j) = 1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) ^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2} \sum^n_{k=1} ( x^{i}_k) ^2$$

**To learn $x^{(1)}, x^{(2)}, …, x^{(n_m)}$**

$$\min_{x^{(1)}, …, x^{(n_m)}} \frac{1}{2} \sum^{n_m}_{i=1} \sum_{j:r(i,j) = 1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) ^2 + $$

$$\frac{\lambda}{2} \sum^{n_m}_{i=1} \sum^n_{k=1} ( x^{j}_k) ^2$$

**Gradient descent**

When $k = 0$,

$$x_k^{(j)}:= x_k^{(i)} - \alpha \sum_{j:r(i,j)=1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) \theta_k^{(j)}$$

When $k = 1$,

$$x_k^{(j)}:= x_k^{(i)} - \alpha \sum_{j:r(i,j)=1} (( \theta^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{(i,j)}) \theta_k^{(j)} + \lambda x_k^{(i)})$$

## Collaborating filtering algorithm

Minimizing $x^{(1)}, x^{(2)}, …, x^{(n_m)}$ and $\theta^{(1)}, \theta^{(2)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}$ simultaneously:

$$J(x^{(1)}, …, x^{(n_m)}, \theta^{(1)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{(i,j):r(i,j) = 1}(( \theta ^{(j)}) ^T x^{(i)} - y^{{(i,j)})}2 + $$

$$\frac{\lambda}{2} \sum^{n_u}_{j=1} \sum^n_{k=1} ( \theta^{j}_k) ^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2} \sum^{n_m}_{i=1} \sum^n_{k=1} ( x^{j}_k) ^2$$

$$\min_{x^{(1)}, …, x^{(n_m)}, \theta^{(1)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)}} J(x^{(1)}, …, x^{(n_m)}, \theta^{(1)}, …, \theta^{(n_u)})$$

Gradient descent is the same to the previous content.

## Steps

- Initialize $x^{(1)}, …, x^{(m)}, \theta^{(1)}, …,\theta^{(m_u)}$ to random values
- Minimize $J(x^{(1)}, …, x^{(m)}, \theta^{(1)}, …,\theta^{(m_u)})$

Descent (or an advanced optimization algorithm) eg. for every $j = 1, …, n_u, i = 1, …, n_m$

- For user with parameters $\theta$ and a movie with (learned) features x, predict a star rating of $\theta^Tx$

# Implementing detail: mean normalization

We talked about mean normalization. However, unlike some other applications of feature scaling, we did not scale the movie ratings by dividing by the range (max – min value). This is because:

All the movie ratings are already comparable (e.g., 0 to 5 stars), so they are already on similar scales.

# Class exercises

## Within classes

**Q1: Vectorization: low-rank matrix factorization**

## Homework

**Q2:** In which of the following situations will a collaborative filtering system be the most appropriate learning algorithm (compared to linear or logistic regression)?

You’ve written a piece of software that has downloaded news articles from many news websites. in /-- your system, you also keep track of which articles you personally like vs. dislike, and the system also stores away features of these articles (e.g., word counts, name of author]. Using this information, you want to build a system to try to find additional new articles that you personally will like.

You manage an online bookstore and you have the book ratings from many users. You want to learn to predict the expected sales volume {number of books sold] as a function of the average rating of a book.

**Q4:** Which of the following are true of collaborative filtering systems? Check all that apply.

Suppose you are writing a recommender system to predict a user’s book preferences. In order to build such a system, you need the user to rate all the other books in your training set.

For collaborative filtering, the optimization algorithm you should use is gradient descent. In particular, you cannot use more advanced optimization algorithms {L-BFGS/conjugate gradient, etc.) for collaborative filtering, since you have to solve for both the $x^{(i)}$'s and $\theta^{(j)}$'s simultaneously.

# Reference

[1] Andrew NG, Machine Learning

本博客所有文章除特别声明外，均采用 CC BY-SA 4.0 协议 ，转载请注明出处！