<!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>Integrating Ratings and Pairwise Preferences in Recommender Systems</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Free University of Bozen - Bolzano</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2018</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>28</fpage>
      <lpage>30</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>User preferences in the form of absolute evaluations such as user ratings or clicks are widely used in many Recommender Systems (RSs). However, such type of preferences have some disadvantages. For instance, users can not further re ne the preferences for items that are scored with the same rating (e.g., are both 5 stars or both liked). In our research work, as an alternative way of modeling user preferences and compute recommendations, we have been focusing on pairwise preferences, such as, item i is preferred to item j. We aim at building RSs by combining both ratings and pairwise preferences in order to make the best use of this mixed preference data. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to e ectively use pairwise preferences to generate accurate recommendations and that there are speci c conditions/situations where pairwise preferences elicitation is more meaningful and useful.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Most of the current research and application of Recommender Systems is based
on the usage of preferences derived from absolute evaluations, such as, user
ratings or clicks [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. However, this type of preferences have few disadvantages. For
instance, if a user assigns the highest rating to an item and then successively
nds that she prefers another item to the rst one, she has no choice but to
also give to this new item the highest rating [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Moreover, if most of the user
rated items are 5 stars, then it is di cult to understand which one the user
really prefers among them. In our research work, we have been focusing on
pairwise preferences as an alternative way of modeling user preferences and compute
recommendations. We are considering scenarios where users compare items in
pairs, indicating which one, and to what extent, is preferred [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Modeling user
preferences in the form of pairwise preferences and identifying which
recommendation situation is best suited for using these preference statements has not been
explored so far.
      </p>
      <p>
        A few existing research work [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref3 ref4">4, 2, 3</xref>
        ] have developed recommendation
techniques by using pairwise preferences. By comparing two items a numeric pair
score is de ned; this indicates to what extent the rst is preferred to the second
(positive score), or if they are equivalent (null score) or if the second item is
preferred to the rst (negative score). Moreover, a user can also compare features
of items, e.g., a user may state that \prefers a hotel with TV and kitchen to a
hotel in the center but without a kitchen". In fact, in everyday life, rating items
is not a natural mechanism for making decisions. For instance, we do not rate
cars when we want to buy one. It is more likely that we will compare them one
to one, and purchase the preferred one.
      </p>
      <p>Having the goal of incorporating pairwise preferences along with ratings in
RS, we have investigated the following research questions:
{ RQ1: Given a collection of ratings and pairwise scores, how to e ectively use
this information to build RSs?
{ RQ2: How to combine pairwise preferences over items and their features to
e ectively construct RSs and provide accurate recommendations?
{ RQ3: In order to collect useful preferences, which items should a system ask
a user to evaluate and which type of preferences should be asked (ratings or
pair scores)?
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Pairwise Preferences Based Recommender System</title>
      <p>
        The proposed recommendation techniques combine ratings and pairwise scores
to model user preferences and generate recommendations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. In order to address
RQ1, we have proposed two pair scores prediction methods. Predicting unknown
pair scores is equivalent to predicting ratings; it is a preliminary step to ranking
items and generating recommendations.
      </p>
      <p>
        MF for Pair Scores Prediction: We have proposed a matrix factorization
pair score prediction and item ranking methods (MFP). It extends Matrix
Factorization (MF) for ratings data sets [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] to MF for pair scores predictions. MFP
replaces items (ratings) with pairs of items (pair scores) to predict a missing
pair scores of a user.
      </p>
      <p>
        NN for Pair Scores Prediction: We have designed a Nearest-Neighbor
(NN) approach for predicting unknown pairwise scores that use two
user-touser similarity metrics that are better suited for user pro les formed by pairwise
scores. The rst metric is Goodman and Kruskal's gamma (GK), which is de ned
as (P Q)=(P + Q), where P is the number of item pairs that are ranked in the
same order by both users (concordant pairs) and Q is the number of item pairs
that are ranked in the reverse order. The second similarity metric is Expected
Discounted Rank Correlation (EDRC). EDRC was proposed by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] in order to
evaluate the rank accuracy of a recommendation list. We have modi ed and
adapted EDRC so that it can be used as a user-to-user similarity metric. EDRC
is asymmetric and measures how much a user u set of pairwise preferences match
a user v set of pairwise preferences. It is based on a graph representation of the
pair scores where the vertices represent items and edges represent pairwise scores.
      </p>
      <p>
        We have evaluated these techniques using pair scores collected by an
itemto-item comparison GUI that was used in a movie recommender system [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Integrating Ratings and Pairwise Preferences in Recommender Systems
Our experimental analysis [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] demonstrates that the proposed approaches have
better ranking performance compared to other state of the art algorithms [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref4 ref9">2,
4, 9</xref>
        ]. Hence, our results have shown that pairwise preferences can be e ectively
used to model user preferences and build RSs [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        We then observed that there are many situations where preferences over
features may be a natural way for the user to signal what types of items she likes.
For instance, one may like a movie because of its actors. We, therefore, addressed
RQ2 by extending our recommendation techniques based on item comparisons
and studied how user preferences over features such as \I like Italian movies
more than Indian movies" could be encoded as comparisons between items [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In order to encode feature preferences into comparisons between items, we
have de ned a rule to selectively identify the best set of item comparisons that
e ectively express the given feature preferences. For instance, when a user's
favorite feature is action then we add to the data set arti cial pair scores
expressing that the items which have the action feature are preferred to those that
are not action. However, since such a naive approach would generate a
unnecessary large number of comparisons, we have explored alternative solutions and
designed a procedure for deriving a reduced number of item comparisons: we
consider only the item comparisons that refer to items that were already
mentioned in other item comparisons explicitly made by users, hence focusing on a
denser set of comparisons [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. We have combined these item comparisons
originated by feature comparisons along with regular item comparisons, i.e., those
user preferences expressed on the items, and used them into our recommendation
technology to compute a personalized ranking of items.
      </p>
      <p>
        We have conducted an o ine evaluation of our proposed methods and
measured the performance of our recommendation techniques when the system uses
user pro les containing an increasing amount of items preferences. Our
experimental results, on the PoliMovie dataset, demonstrate that there is a bene t
in using item comparisons derived from feature preferences especially in severe
cold-start situation (when the users have compared a few items), and using both
types of item comparisons, our recommender can improve cold start
recommendations for new users, compared to a model that exploits only item comparisons
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Finally, in order to address RQ3, we tried to identify how and when it is
appropriate to elicit pairwise preferences, i.e., when this form of user preference
data is more meaningful for the user to express and more bene cial for the
system. We have implemented a new technique for pairwise preferences elicitation
and recommendation generation in a mobile RS, and applied it to South Tyrol
Suggests (STS) app. STS recommends interesting places of interests (POIs) in
South Tyrol region in Italy. STS is an Android-based RS that provides users with
context-aware recommendations. For our experiments, we have implemented two
RSs variants of STS and conducted a live user study. One variant is based on
ratings only while the other employs our developed algorithms, gathers user
prefhttp://rerex.inf.unibz.it/
erences in the form of pairwise scores and makes recommendations using them
together with a possibly pre-existent rating data set.</p>
      <p>In an A/B test comparisons of these two variants, we have demonstrated that
pairwise preferences can be more e ective, if compared with ratings, to model
user preferences in situations and scenarios where the user has a clear objective
and is looking for a speci c type of items (recommendation). For instance, when
a user wants to select a restaurant for a dinner with friends, is more likely to
choose the best option by comparing the available ones instead of rating them.
Our results show that by incorporating pairwise preferences in such scenarios,
the system is able to capture user preferences e ective ly and to produce better
recommendations than state of the art rating-only based solutions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>We have shown that it is possible to model user preferences in the form of
pairwise preferences and to e ectively build RS. Pairwise preferences naturally
arise and are expressed by users (directly or indirectly) in many decision making
scenarios. We, therefore, believe that pairwise preferences, if they are elicited
with an appropriate GUI, can become a valuable preference modeling mechanism
for RSs. In our future work, we aim at further exploring active learning strategies
that identify a small set of informative pairs of items for eliciting user preferences.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ackerman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Evaluating rank accuracy based on incomplete pairwise preferences</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. Workshop</source>
          on UCERSTI Recsys '
          <volume>11</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bledaite</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Pairwise preferences elicitation and exploitation for conversational collaborative ltering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. Hypertext &amp; Social Media</source>
          <year>2015</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Brun</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hamad</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bu</surname>
          </string-name>
          et, O.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boyer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Towards preference relations in recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Preference Learning Workshop (ECML-PKDD )</source>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Desarkar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Saxena</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sarkar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Preference relation based matrix factorization for recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: UMAP '12</source>
          , pp.
          <volume>63</volume>
          {
          <fpage>75</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalloori</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Pairwise preferences and recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>169</volume>
          {
          <fpage>172</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACM</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalloori</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Improving cold start recommendation by mapping featurebased preferences to item comparisons</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>289</volume>
          {
          <fpage>293</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACM</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalloori</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tkalcic</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Pairwise preferences based matrix factorization and nearest neighbor recommendation techniques</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. RecSys</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          . pp.
          <volume>143</volume>
          {
          <fpage>146</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACM</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Koren</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Volinsky</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computer</source>
          <volume>42</volume>
          (
          <issue>8</issue>
          ),
          <volume>30</volume>
          {
          <fpage>37</fpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rendle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Freudenthaler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gantner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmidt-Thieme</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Bpr: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. UAI '09</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>452</volume>
          {
          <issue>461</issue>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rokach</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shapira</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Recommender systems: Introduction and challenges</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Recommender Systems Handbook</source>
          . Springer (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>