<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>BiaBseidakse-NdNkS-NimNilaSriitmyiClaornitteyntCBoansetdenPtreBdiacstieodn of PredictioMn oovfieMTwoveieetsTPwopeueltasritPyopularity</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ladislav Peska</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Peter Vojtas Ladislav Peska</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Peter Vojtas</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Charles University in Prague Charles University in Prague Malostranske namesti 25</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Prague</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CZ">Czech Republic</country>
          <addr-line>Malostranske namesti 25, Prague</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CZ">Czech Republic</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2015</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>1343</volume>
      <fpage>101</fpage>
      <lpage>110</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>In this paper we describe details of our approach to the RecSys Challenge 2014: User Engagement as Evaluation. The challenge was based on a dataset, which contains tweets that are generated when users rate movies on IMDb (using the iOS app in a smartphone). The challenge for participants is to rank such tweets by expected user interaction, which is expressed in terms of retweet and favorite counts. During experiments we have tested several current off-the-shelf prediction techniques and proposed a variant of item biased k-NN algorithm, which better reflects user engagement and nature of the movie domain content-based attributes. Our final solution (placed in the third quartile of the challenge leader board) is an aggregation of several runs of this algorithm and some off-the-shelf predictors. In the paper we will further describe dataset used, data filtration, algorithm details and settings as well as decisions made during the challenge and dead ends we explored.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>recommender systems</kwd>
        <kwd>content based similarity</kwd>
        <kwd>social network</kwd>
        <kwd>semantic web and linked data</kwd>
        <kwd>hybrid biased k-NN</kwd>
        <kwd>ensemble learning</kwd>
        <kwd>user engagement</kwd>
        <kwd>RecSys Challenge 2014</kwd>
        <kwd>SemWexMFF team</kwd>
        <kwd>data structures for similarity search and indexing</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>Recommending on the web is both an important commercial application and
popular research topic. The amount of data on the web grows continuously and it is
virtually impossible to process it directly by a human. Various tools ranging from keyword
search engines to binary intra e-shop search or product aggregators were adopted to
fight against information overload. Although such tools are definitely useful, they can
be used only if the user is able to specify in detail what he/she wants. Recommender
systems are complementary to this scenario as they are mostly focused on serendipity
– showing surprisingly interesting items the user was not aware of and thus couldn’t
search for them by keywords.</p>
      <p>Many recommender systems, algorithms or methods have been presented so far.
Initially, the majority of research effort was spent on the collaborative systems and
explicit user feedback. Although collaborative recommender systems are generally
trusted to be more accurate, they suffer from three well known problems: cold start,
new object and new user problem.</p>
      <p>New user / object problem is a situation, where recommending algorithm is
incapable of making relevant prediction because of insufficient feedback about current
user / object. The cold start problem refers to a situation short after deployment of
recommender system, where the system cannot provide any relevant recommendation,
because of insufficient data generally.</p>
      <p>Using attributes of objects and hence content based or hybrid recommender
systems can speed up learning curve and reduce the cold start problem. Moreover,
content-based recommender systems can compute similarity of a new object based on its
features effectively eliminating the new object problem.</p>
      <p>Our deep belief is that quality of data used for recommendation are often more
important than the algorithm which processes them. In another words rather than
designing a brand new algorithm we focus on enhancing our datasets and using
state-of-theart or slightly modified algorithms to improve predictions.</p>
      <p>
        The task of 2014 RecSys Challenge1 ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ]) was to predict user engagement
on Twitter for movie rating tweets automatically posted from IMDb2 (from users,
who connected their IMDb and Twitter accounts). The user engagement of each tweet
was defined as a sum of retweets and favorites of this tweet. Other tweet data was also
made available for use, especially user rating of the movie, statistics about the user,
date and time when the tweet was posted and URL to the IMDb page with the movie
(data are available at Github3).
      </p>
      <p>The dataset covers the period from February 2013 to March 2014 and contains in
total almost 213,000 tweets from 24,000 users about 15,000 movies. The dataset was
divided into training, test and validation subsets based on the timestamp when the
tweet was created. Evaluation of the task was based on nDCG metric considering top
10 tweets for each user.</p>
      <p>
        The rest of the paper is organized as follows: review of some related work is in
section 2. In section 3 we provide some insight on the task and how it affected our
solution [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. Section 4 describes which recommending algorithms were used and
their results. Finally section 5 concludes the paper, describes lessons learned during
the challenge and points to some future work.
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>Due to the space reasons, we can provide only a short review of the related work.
For general information and introduction to the recommender systems, we suggest</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>1 http://2014.recsyschallenge.com/</title>
        <p>
          2 http://www.imdb.com
3 https://github.com/sidooms/MovieTweetings/tree/master/recsyschallenge2014
Recommender Systems Handbook [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
          ]. Several state-of-the-art recommending
algorithms was used in the experiments namely Factor Wise Matrix Factorization [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ],
BiPolar Slope One [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ], Item-based k-NN [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ], Decision trees, Support Vector Machines4
etc. Individual results of these methods can be found in Section 4. For the majority of
the algorithms we use their implementation in RapidMiner Studio5, or its
Recommender extension [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          We would like to mention also our own previous work, which affected our
approach: In [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ] we first considered using external semantic content to enhance
secondhand bookshop recommender systems. The paper corroborated improvement of
success metrics while using DBPedia content and although the following experiments
shown that content-based recommending algorithm can be substantially improved, we
kept using the item-item similarity method described there. In the following work on
the same domain [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
          ] we experimented with Content-boosted Matrix Factorization
(CBMF) [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ], which outperformed methods from [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]. Similar approach was also used
in ESWC RecSys Challenge 2014 [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ], however CBMF suffered from too high time
complexity with rising number of examples and content attributes which detracts its
usability. On the other hand the challenge winning method by Risotski et al. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
          ] has
shown that using relatively simple recommenders combined together may provide
surprisingly good results.
        </p>
        <p>
          Our work is also related to the area of linked data. An inspiration to our previous
work was the research by Ostuni et al. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
          ], whose aim was to develop content-based
recommender system for a movie domain based sole on (multiple) LOD datasets and
A. Passant [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ], who developed dbRec – the music recommender system based on
DBPedia dataset. Their point of view is however slightly different as they aim to
develop a recommender system based solely on the semantic web datasets, but in our
work (both previous and contemporary) we need to integrate external knowledge into
the already known structure of the domain, thus our recommending techniques are not
based on graph structure of linked data, but we aim to convert LOD into
attributevalue structure.
        </p>
        <p>
          The area of recommending on social networks is currently well covered in the
research. We would like to mention e.g. Hannon et al. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ] work on recommending
interuser relationships on twitter or Esparza et al. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ] work on categorizing tweets.
Nonetheless due to the specific nature of the challenge task, most of the common social
network based research is not applicable.
3
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>ANALYSIS OF THE TASK</title>
      <p>This section aims on discussion and initial analysis of the challenge task, focusing
mainly on design choices implied by the nature of the task.</p>
      <p>The dataset provided by the challenge organizers consisted of user, tweet and item
identification, timestamp when the tweet was scraped, user rating of the movie and all
information available from the tweet API excerpt from the text of the tweet (see
Fig</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>4 http://www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de/SOFTWARE/MYSVM/ 5 http://www.rapidminer.com</title>
        <p>
          ure 1). The textual information would be extremely important for prediction of user
engagement in other datasets, but automatically generated tweets from IMDb contain
only template text and thus are not much relevant. The same reason makes also tweet
topic categorization (e.g. CatStream [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]) irrelevant. The tweet API contains e.g. date
and time of the tweet posting and statistics about the user (number of friends,
followers, tweets etc.).
        </p>
        <p>
          The user engagement is generally low throughout the dataset. The average user
engagement in the training set is 0.216, over 95% of the tweets have zero user
engagement and almost 80% of users received zero engagement for all of their tweets. The
situation seems to be similar to the number of purchases on an e-commerce site,
where most of the users only browse items, but do not buy one. Our experiments on
such domain [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ] suggested using extended observation of user behavior and content
of the items to improve recommendation. As the monitoring of user behavior is not
possible in this scenario, we focused on using available content. Another interesting
question is how to interpret zero user engagement in situations where no engagement
was shown also in other tweets of the same user.
3.1
        </p>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-1">
          <title>Content-based Movie Datasets, Collaborative vs. Content-based</title>
          <p>Prior to the experiments, we have conducted a small survey of available movie
datasets. The IMDb, DBPedia6, and Freebase7 were examined concluding that IMDb
contains most of the relevant information available in the other two datasets. Due to
100% coverage of items (each tweet was based on single IMDb object) and
availability of querying API8 we decided to use sole IMDb for dataset enhancements. The
movie features used in our solution can be distinguished into three classes:
 Attributes describing popularity (average rating, number of awards, IMDb
metascore)
 Attributes describing widespread of the movie (number of ratings)
 Attributes describing content (movie name, release date, genre, country, language,
director, actors)</p>
          <p>There is however some space left for further improvements especially by
employing DBPedia features like dcterms:subject or widespread metrics like ingoing /
outgoing links or number of Wikipedia language editions.</p>
          <p>The test dataset contains large number of new movies unseen in the training data,
so we expect that purely collaborative recommenders will not provide very good
predictions. Another possible limitation is large number of zero user engagement. This
caused problems to some algorithms (e.g. decision trees) as they almost constantly
predicted zero for all tweets. The problem can be bypassed e.g. by filtering out (some)
examples with zero engagement or by copying other tweets. The task is also not well</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>6 http://www.dbpedia.org</title>
        <p>7 http://www.freebase.com
8 http://www.omdbapi.com
suited for the purely content-based recommenders as there are new users in the test
dataset and also for many users we have only a few tweets available.
We are deeply convinced that crucial for any recommending task is to estimate on
which variables the final success may depend. In the current case each tweet contains
almost the same text except for the name of the movie and the user rating, so we do
not expect that the tweet itself can affect user engagement.</p>
        <p>Important variable determining user engagement is probably composition of user
friends and followers. Unfortunately the dataset contains only total numbers of friends
and followers for each user, not the variables describing them, but we can at least
employ user bias defining average engagement for each user.</p>
        <p>Another important component is, according to our assumption, features of the
movie that the tweet refers to. The sole movie ID may not be enough as there are
numerous new movies in the test set and some movies are not rated with enough
users. Thus we need to define content-based similarity between movies under
assumption that similar movies will be treated similarly.</p>
        <p>Also the date when the tweet was posted may be interesting since the structure of
friends or followers might change over time and also popularity of the movie may
evolve, but we expect that relation of previous components should be stronger and so
we did not pursue this direction and leave it for the future work. The same applies
also for the dependence between user rating and user engagement.
4</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>RECOMMENDING ALGORITHMS</title>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>In our approach we worked with two main hypotheses:</title>
        <p> Engagement of similar movies should be similar.
 Engagement depends on neighborhood of the current user.</p>
        <p>In order to define inter-movie similarity, we used IMDb querying API to generate
content-based attributes. We also considered using DBPedia or Freebase, but IMDb
contains most of the relevant information and furthermore offers guaranteed 100%
item coverage. Three types of attributes were downloaded: attributes describing
popularity (average rating, number of awards, IMDb metascore), attributes describing
widespread of the movie (number of ratings), attributes describing content (movie
name, release date, genre, country, language, director, actors).</p>
        <p>The second hypothesis reflects our expectation that composition of user friends and
followers would greatly affect observed engagement. The twitter API contains only
aggregated information (total numbers of friends and followers for each user), so we
decided to use simple user bias instead of machine learning over user’s friends.</p>
        <p>Prior to the design of our own recommending algorithm we evaluated several
offthe-shelf algorithms using RapidMiner and its Recommender extension. As expected,
results of both collaborative-filtering and standard machine learning algorithms were
except for SVM rather unsatisfying. Table 1 contains the best achieved results for
each algorithm over different settings. Some dataset transformations (e.g. omitting
records with zero engagement from the training set, transformation of user
engagement in training set etc.) were also examined, but they did not significantly improve
the results.
= max⁡(0,

)
According to the assumptions and hypothesis formulated in Section 3, we decided to
pursue especially content-based movie similarity. We implemented a variant of well
known k-nearest-neighbors as our main individual recommender (see Algorithm 1),
where similarity of tweets is determined as content-based similarity of the respective
movies. The similarity is defined as average of attributes similarities. Attribute
similarity is defined according to attribute type. Similarity of numeric attributes (average
rating, number of ratings, number of awards, IMDb metascore and release date) is
defined as their difference normalized by maximal allowed distance (1).</p>
        <p>− | −  |</p>
        <p>For string attributes (movie name) the similarity is defined as inverse of relative
Levenshtein distance (2). This allows us to define as similar e.g. movie series.</p>
        <p>Finally, similarity of set attributes (genre, country, director and actors) is defined
as Jaccard similarity (3). Note that nominal attributes can be dealt as sets of size 1.</p>
        <p>Differences between audiences of users will be considered in the form of user bias
(average value of engagement per user). The bias of current user is not important, as
the evaluation is on per user base, however the bias of other users should be
considered within the k-NN algorithm.</p>
        <p>Algorithm 1: Hybrid biased k-NN algorithm: for tweet tIDte from the test set, its
movie mIDte and fixed k, the algorithm first computes similarities to other movies in
training set and selects k most similar movies. Then for each tweet about a similar
movie the predicted ranking  ̂ is increased according to similarity⁡ , user engagement
e and bias of the tweeting user. The bias of the current movie is added in the final  ̂
prediction too (see Figure 1).
function HybridBiasedKNN(tIDte ϵ TestSet, k){  ̂ = 0; extract
mIDte from tIDte, extract uIDte , extract mIDte content from IMDb
/*compute similarity for all movies */
foreach(mID ϵ TrainSet){</p>
        <p>S[mID] = similarity(mIDte, mID); }
/*get k most similar movies */
S̅ = getKMostSimilar(mIDte,S,k);
/*get all tweets about movies in S̅ */
foreach({uID, mID, e,  }:
{uID, mID, e} ϵ TrainSet &amp;&amp; S̅[mID]=⁡ ){ ̂ +=  * e / bias(uIDte);}
 ̂ = bias(mIDte) + ( ̂ / sum( ))
return tIDte,  ̂; }</p>
        <p>Several meta modeling techniques were used to derive final predictions based
on hybrid k-NN and off-the-shelf algorithms predictions. We have experimented with
stacking with random trees, linear regression in cross-validation like setting and also
tried several variants of averaging selected predictions (omitting portion of highest
and lowest predictions for each tweet).
4.2</p>
        <sec id="sec-4-1-1">
          <title>Results and Discussion</title>
          <p>Table 2 contains results of several variants of hybrid k-NN algorithm as well as best
aggregated predictions (for the sake of clarity we show only a fraction of results
expressing different aspects of the data). Generally spoken, the best performing
individual recommender was SVM followed by several variants of hybrid k-NN. Almost all
experimented settings of hybrid k-NN outperformed other standard machine learning
methods (Table 1). Surprisingly, stacking based ensemble did not predict well,
probably due to dependence of the results on user, which is hard to express with decision
trees. Also linear regression did not improve results, but averaging results of selected
algorithms provided a significant improvement over the best individual
recommenders.</p>
          <p>While evaluating Hybrid Biased k-NN we focused mainly on the utility of each
attribute, using of user bias and also ways to combine results from multiple algorithm
settings. Only a fraction of our results can be shown due to the space reasons. We can
state that most of the attributes used as sole similarity measure provided good results
(especially IMDb metascore, director, country and language) – see Table 2.</p>
          <p>Avg rating 0.7918 Movie 0.7947 Language 0.8005
name
Awards 0.7652 Date 0.7962 Director 0.8029
Metascore 0.8057 Genre 0.7919 Actors 0.7930
# of ratings 0.7964 Country 0.7984</p>
          <p>One of our research questions was which value to use as user engagement e. The
experiments showed that if using directly sum of retweets and favorites, the algorithm
is highly dependent on using user bias. Another option was to use rank of the tweet in
the list of current user’s tweets ordered by user engagement (rank of the tweet should
better reflect considered success metric). Under this setting was algorithm less
dependent on using bias, however overall results were slightly worse.</p>
          <p>Another question was how to interpret if all tweets of a user have constantly zero
user engagement. Omitting those users from the training set however resulted into the
decrease of performance so we suppose that even these tweets carries some negative
evidence. Comparing with off-the-shelf algorithms, almost all variants of Hybrid
kNN achieved better results.</p>
          <p>The neighborhood size k between 50 and 100 provided good results. We also tried
numerous variants of combining attribute similarities within the Hybrid k-NN
algorithm (omitting some attributes, weighting schemas) and ensemble methods (stacking,
linear regression), but so far the best results was achieved by simple average of single
attribute predictions omitting single top and bottom result – see Table 3.</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>In this paper, we presented our solution to the RecSys Challenge 2014. After analysis
of the task, available data and current prediction techniques, we proposed a variant of
k-NN algorithm leveraging content-based similarity of movies. The algorithm
performed comparably with the best examined prediction techniques and the best results
were achieved after averaging results of multiple runs of hybrid k-NN and SVM. Our
solution was placed ninth in the challenge leader board. Some of our ideas didn’t
work as we expected, namely using more advanced ensemble techniques and using
ranks of the tweet instead of its user engagement resulted in worse predictions.</p>
      <p>There are several directions of the future work. In our research so far we did not
pursue temporal dependence at all which could also affect user engagement. The
defined movie similarity should be also examined and tuned. We could also try to
employ tweet similarity instead of movie similarity (we didn’t so far for the sake of
computation effectivity). Also other procedures to aggregate results from multiple
algorithms should be examined. Last but not least enhancing current dataset with e.g.
DBPedia popularity measures should be considered.</p>
      <p>
        Concerning data structures for similarity search and indexing – the query object is
usually multimodal ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]). Our objects have simple attributes and metrics is easy to
compute. Our query is initiated by the whole user’s history, in contrast with [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
Moreover the metrics is dynamically changing because of bias is changing. It is a
challenge to consider index structure for fast k-NN for online usage.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bell</surname>
            , R.; Koren,
            <given-names>Y. &amp; Volinsky</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ch</surname>
          </string-name>
          .:
          <article-title>Modeling relationships at multiple scales to improve accuracy of large recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In KDD '07</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACM</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          ,
          <fpage>95</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>104</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Budíková P. Towards</surname>
          </string-name>
          Large-Scale
          <string-name>
            <surname>Multi-Modal Image</surname>
            <given-names>Search</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Doctoral thesis Masaryk University,
          <year>2013</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Alan</given-names>
            <surname>Eckhardt</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Tomás Skopal, Peter Vojtás:
          <article-title>On Fuzzy vs. Metric Similarity Search in Complex Databases</article-title>
          .
          <source>In FQAS 2009</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Springer</surname>
            <given-names>LNCS</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Volume
          <volume>5822</volume>
          , (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
          <fpage>64</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>75</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Forbes</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Content-boosted matrix factorization for recommender systems: experiments with recipe recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In RecSys</source>
          <year>2011</year>
          , ACM,
          <year>2011</year>
          ,
          <fpage>261</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>264</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Esparza</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S. G.
          <string-name>
            <surname>; O'Mahony</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smyth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>CatStream: Categorizing Tweets for User Profiling and Stream Filtering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In IUI</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          , ACM,
          <year>2013</year>
          ,
          <fpage>25</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>36</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hannon</surname>
            , J.; Bennett,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smyth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Recommending Twitter</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Users to Follow Using Content and Collaborative Filtering Approaches</article-title>
          .
          <source>In RecSys</source>
          <year>2010</year>
          , ACM,
          <year>2010</year>
          ,
          <fpage>199</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>206</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lemire</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maclachlan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Slope One Predictors for Online Rating-Based Collaborative Filtering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In SIAM Data Mining (SDM</source>
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Linden</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G.;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smith</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp; York, J.: Amazon.
          <article-title>com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering, Internet Computing</article-title>
          , IEEE,
          <year>2003</year>
          ,
          <volume>7</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>76</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>80</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mihelčić</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Antulov-Fantulin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bošnjak</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Šmuc</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Extending RapidMiner with recommender systems algorithms</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In RCM</source>
          <year>2012</year>
          , Budapest, Hungary,
          <year>2012</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ostuni</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; Di Noia,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            ;
            <surname>Di Sciascio</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            &amp;
            <surname>Mirizzi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>R.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Top-N recommendations from implicit feedback leveraging linked open data</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In RecSys</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          , ACM,
          <year>2013</year>
          ,
          <fpage>85</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>92</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Passant</surname>
          </string-name>
          , A. dbrec - Music
          <source>Recommendations Using DBpedia In ISWC 2010</source>
          , Springer, LNCS,
          <year>2010</year>
          ,
          <fpage>209</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>224</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vojtas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Enhancing Recommender Systems with Linked Open Data</article-title>
          .
          <source>In FQAS 2013</source>
          , Springer, LNCS
          <volume>8132</volume>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          ,
          <fpage>483</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>494</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vojtas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hybrid Recommending Exploiting Multiple DBPedia Language Editions</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>In ESWC 2014 Linked Open Data-enabled Recommender Systems Challenge</source>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peska</surname>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vojtas</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hybrid Biased</surname>
          </string-name>
          k-NN to Predict Movie Tweets Popularity, poster, http://2014.recsyschallenge.com/program/SemWexMFF_short_
          <fpage>09</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>21</lpage>
          .pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vojtás</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Recommending for Disloyal Customers with Low Consumption Rate</article-title>
          .
          <source>In SOFSEM 2014</source>
          , Springer, LNCS
          <volume>8327</volume>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          ,
          <fpage>455</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>465</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vojtas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Using Linked Open Data to Improve Recommending on ECommerce</article-title>
          .
          <source>In SerSy Worlshop at RecSys</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          , Hong Kong
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17. RecSys Challenge 2014:
          <article-title>User Engagement as Evaluation. Complete dataset</article-title>
          . https://github.com/sidooms/ MovieTweetings/tree/master/recsyschallenge2014
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ristoski</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mencia</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paulheim</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.:
          <article-title>A Hybrid Multi-Strategy Recommender System Using Linked Open Data</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In ESWC</source>
          <year>2014</year>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ricci F.; Rokach L.; Shapira</surname>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kantor P.B</surname>
          </string-name>
          ., editors,
          <source>Recommender Systems Handbook</source>
          , Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          20.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Said</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dooms</surname>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Loni</surname>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tikk</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the 2014 Recommender Systems Challenge</source>
          , http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=
          <fpage>2668067</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          21.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Skopal</surname>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bustos</surname>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>On nonmetric similarity search problems in complex domains</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Comput. Surv</source>
          .
          <volume>43</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ):
          <volume>34</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>