<!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>Social Trust as a solution to address sparsity-inherent problems of Recommender systems</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Georgios Pitsilis Q2S, NTNU O.S. Bragstads plass 2E NO-7491</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Trondheim</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NO">Norway</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Trust has been explored by many researchers in the past as a successful solution for assisting recommender systems. Even though the approach of using a web-of-trust scheme for assisting the recommendation production is well adopted, issues like the sparsity problem have not been explored adequately so far with regard to this. In this work we are proposing and testing a scheme that uses the existing ratings of users to calculate the hypothetical trust that might exist between them. The purpose is to demonstrate how some basic social networking when applied to an existing system can help in alleviating problems of traditional recommender system schemes. Interestingly, such schemes are also alleviating the cold start problem from which mainly new users are suffering. In order to show how good the system is in that respect, we measure the performance at various times as the system evolves and we also contrast the solution with existing approaches. Finally, we present the results which justify that such schemes undoubtedly work better than a system that makes no use of trust at all.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Recommender Systems</kwd>
        <kwd>Trust Modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>data sparsity problem Cold-Start problem</kwd>
        <kwd>Social network</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>
        Services offered by recommender systems tend to be hosted in
centralized systems. Beside the benefit that is offered in terms of
easiness in managing the resources and the availability of the
services, there are issues with regard to how much the new users
can receive the benefits of their participation in the system. As
new users we consider those who have not contributed enough
data to the system and hence makes it difficult for predictions for
them to be made. Similarly, the same problem seems to exist with
items which the users have not have much experience yet.
Recommender system services may be offered by social
networking platforms like FaceBook [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] and web-pages like
dealtime.com [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] or Amazon [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] and may be using mechanisms of
User-Based recommender systems for working out predictions for
items that users potentially like.
      </p>
      <p>Any potential solution for alleviating the data sparsity issue
should not work at the expense of performance of such system but
instead it should provide some substantial benefits to users during
their bootstrapping. The inability of new users in supplying
Svein J. Knapskog</p>
      <p>Q2S, NTNU</p>
      <p>O.S. Bragstads plass 2E
NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway</p>
      <p>
        +47 735 94328
sufficient quantities of data to the system for predictions to be
computed accurately is described in the literature as “cold-start
problem”[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Our approach for overcoming the above problem is based on the
idea of extending the neighboring base of new users so that they
can be correlated with more participants, not necessarily linked
directly with each other via similarity relationships, but been
discovered via “friends” as trustworthy for contributing useful
data. The trust for them can be inferred via their similar, and
hence common, neighbors in a scheme that is known as
‘web-oftrust’. In this way, due to the propagation characteristics of trust,
it is plausible that similarity between entities that could not be
linked previously is becoming exploitable. Users who can be
discovered via friends-of-friends might be useful as they may
carry valuable experience about some product that is of interest to
somebody else. As trust is mainly used for extending the number
of relationships between people, users can now cooperate with
more participants than before and thus get access to more
recommendations. For short we call our system ‘hybrid’ as it
combines both trust networks and traditional recommender
systems approaches. We used a framework called “Subjective
Logic” for the reasoning of the virtual trust relationships, and
since the adaptation to existing recommender system models is a
key issue, we used a model that we built our own for inferring
trust from the existing users’ experiences.</p>
      <p>The evaluation we present shows the twofold benefit of this
approach as the accomplished reduction of sparsity is
accompanied by improved performance. To show the
improvement with regard to the cold-start problem we
demonstrate how some performance metrics evolve as the user
community is growing. The rest of the paper is organized as
follows: Section 2 is referred to the description of the problem. In
section 3 we present the idea and the logical reasoning behind it.
An evaluation of the idea follows in section 4, analysis of work
that has been done in the area there is in section 5 and finally we
conclude with a discussion of the results.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. PROBLEM STATEMENT</title>
      <p>The sparsity-inherent problems of recommender systems are
related to the fact that a satisfactory number of inferences for
either users or items can not be extracted, due to lack of gathered
information.</p>
      <p>
        User-Based recommender systems that employ a technique called
Collaborative filtering (CF) (in which the user preference for
some item is computed upon the similarities between the users),
mainly use Resnicks’s [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ] formula (Equation. 1) for working out
predictions ra,(i) for user a and items i. With wa,u is denoted the
Pearson’s similarity of user a with user u, and ru the rating of user
u for the item that is of interest to a. The formula does not give
satisfactory accuracy when sparse datasets are used, as the
predictions are highly sensitive to the number of similar
participants, n.
      </p>
      <p>
        n
ra (i )  ra   w a ,u ru (i )  ru 
u 1
(1)
Even though the exploitation of social networks has been
recognized as a potential solution for addressing such problems
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ], the applied solutions, at least as it seems, do not fulfill this
requirement completely. For example, in Epinions.com [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ], a
well known commercial recommender system, the formation of
the trust network is done explicitly by asking users themselves to
express whom they trust. In our opinion that is very unproductive
for two reasons: first, because not all users are familiar with the
notion of trust and hence they are unable to explicitly express
whom they trust, and second because people, as it happens for
item ratings, are unwilling to invest much time and effort in
contributing with their opinions. The latter is considered as the
main reason for having sparse datasets.
      </p>
      <p>
        The cold-start problem has been approached in the past from the
aspect of being a problem in social networking and recommender
systems. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ] it is suggested that special criteria should be used
for deciding to whom it is best for the new users to connect. The
decision in this case is based upon users’ so far objective
assessment of candidates for their suitability and it is decided on
how active they have been in contributing data to the system.
Nevertheless, such a decision is based solely on quantitative
criteria and in our opinion it would be best if qualitative criteria
(such as how useful such recommendations have been found to be
by the cold start users) were also used. In addition, in the above
mentioned solutions the social trust is not adequately exploited, as
the discovery for trustworthy participants is usually done by
applying local criteria.
      </p>
      <p>
        It is crucial that when a new idea is applied to an existing system
for enhancing its performance it is done in such a way that adapts
best to it. Therefore in our model, no additional data should be
required to be supplied by users, but the inferred trust should be
implicitly derived from the existing evidence instead. This
procedure is also useful from the practical aspect, since by doing
so the existing recommendation production cycle would not need
to change significantly to include the benefits that social
networking provides. Similar ways of implicit derivation of user’s
trust from evidence has been proposed for other purposes before,
like the EigenTrust algorithm [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ] that was mainly build for
peerto-peer systems. However, the trust in that case was essentially
perceived as a global reputation value due to being independent
on the point of view.
      </p>
      <p>
        To our knowledge, the use of trust networks for alleviating
sparsity-inherent problems, such as the cold-start problem in
recommender systems have not been adequately studied so far.
With regard to trust models and frameworks, there are many
developed so far, most of them mainly to meet special
requirements of particular problems, and other more generic ones
such as Subjective Logic [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. We mention this framework
explicitly because of the substantial adoption it has received for
studying the effects of trust propagation in user communities.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH</title>
      <p>User-based recommender systems that use Resnick’s formula are
limited to computing predictions of ratings for users whose
similarity wa,u with the all contributing participants is known. The
limited number of neighbors that can contribute during the system
bootstrapping is a significant constraint for achieving good
performance during the early stages of the recommender system’s
life.</p>
      <p>Since the accuracy of predictions that the querying user receives
is dependent on the number of neighbors/predictors that appear to
be similar to him/her, it means that a substantial improvement can
be achieved if multiple predictors could be involved in the
computation of ra,(i). As new users do not have enough
experiences to contribute during the bootstrapping it means the
performance would be sub-optimal as there would not be enough
links between them.</p>
      <p>One characteristic pitfall of a conventional recommendation
system mechanism is the inability to incorporate prediction
ratings of other participants who have experienced some item that
is of interest to the querying agent, but their similarity with the
querying agent cannot be inferred.</p>
      <p>If a recommender system were to be represented graphically, the
similar users would appear to be within a distance of one hop
away from the querying user. Exploitation of information that
resides at longer distances would be plausible if similarity could
have propagative characteristics. Since trust is known for
providing such property, which is the key idea of social networks,
it means inferring trust from similarity could make it possible to
overcome the above limitation. Pursuing this idea further, the
neighboring base of users could be extended beyond the one hop
range by introducing a hybrid system in which the similarity
could be inferred from trust.</p>
      <p>The above requirement for predicting the rating that some user i
would give to item b can be expressed as follows:
b  B |  a j  n ( a i ) : ri ( b )   r j ( b )  
  a k  n ( a j ) : rk ( b )  
(2)
where B is the set of all items in the system, i,j,k are 3 users, a is
the set of users and n() is a function that denotes a similar
neighbor to i.</p>
      <p>In a typical scenario of operation of a User-Based recommender
system (see figure 11) we assume that Alice and Bob have both
experienced a number of items Ba and Bb respectively and hence it
can be known how similar they are. On the other hand Clark has
another set of common experiences with Bob, and hence it can
also be known how similar Bob is with him. However, Clark’s
experience about some new item that might be of interest to
Alice, is not exploitable in the conventional system (Alice’s
similarity to Clark’s is not computable).</p>
      <p>Extending this consideration and inferring trust implicitly from
the calculated similarity for every pair of similar users, then
1 The letters A…L represent the items rated by users and the
numbers 1…5 the rates given.
finally a web-of-trust for social partners linked together can be
developed.</p>
      <p>Alice
1 A
4 B 5
2 C 3
5 D 4
3 E 4
4 F 4</p>
      <p>G 3</p>
      <p>Recommender
trust for Bob</p>
      <p>Bob
Functional
trust for</p>
      <p>Clark
Indirect functional trust for Clark</p>
      <p>One important issue that comes from the implicit derivation of
trust is concerned with the representation of the existing evidence
into trust metrics. For that reason some appropriate mapping is
necessary.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>3.1 Trust Modeling</title>
      <p>In socially aware systems, users benefit from their trust and
connections with others as they can find people they need through
the people they trust. Links to a person imply some amount of
trust for this person. The importance of social networks is found
in the exploitation of such network data to produce information
about trust between individuals which have no direct network
connection. In theory about trust, this requirement is described
with a property called transitivity which we are attempting to
exploit in this work. As trust is not perfectly transitive in the
mathematical sense, however it can be useful in the way like in
the real world people consider recommendations from others they
trust for their choices. Since trust that derives though
recommendations is dependent on the point of view it means it is
merely subjective.</p>
      <p>In contrast to similarity, trust relationships can be propagated
transitively throughout the network of users. In this way the
common neighbors can act as trustworthy participants for users of
whom similarity is not known, but can be approximated via their
derived trust. The concept of computing the indirect trust for
distant entities requires the employment of some suitable algebra
such as Subjective Logic. However, it is required that evidence
has first been transformed into some form that the trust algebra
can use.</p>
      <p>
        Trust in subjective logic is expressed in a form that is called
opinion and is referred to a metric that originally was introduced
in Uncertain Probabilities theory [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
        ], an extension to
probabilistic logic. An opinion expresses the belief about the truth
of some proposition which may represent the behavior of some
agent. The ownership of the opinion is also taken into account and
this is what makes the assessment of trustworthiness subjective.
Furthermore, this theory is suitable for modeling cases where
there is incomplete knowledge. In the case of recommender
systems the lack of knowledge about some agent’s rating behavior
comes from the fact that there are usually limited observations of
the rating behavior of some person. The lack of knowledge is
actually what shapes the subjective trust or distrust towards that
entity. The absence of both trust and distrust in opinions is
expressed by the uncertainty property. The subjective logic
framework uses a simple intuitive representation of uncertain
probabilities by using a three dimensional metric that comprises
belief (b), disbelief (d) and uncertainty (u) into opinions. It is
required that evidence comes in such a form that opinions
 p  {b pA , d pA , u pA } about some agent A with regard to the
proposition p can be derived from it, and thus be better
manageable due to the quite flexible calculus that the opinion
space provides. By convention the following rule holds for b,d,u:
b+d+u=1.
      </p>
      <p>Subjective Logic provides the following two operators:
recommendation (3) and consensus (4). Both can be used for
combining opinions and deriving recommendations regarding
other agents in the social network.
(3)
(4)
 pA, B   pA   pB  {b pA , B , d pA , B , u pA, B }
A, B are agents and  pB  {b pB , d pB , u pB } is the opinion of B
about
p</p>
      <p>expressed
 B  {b BA , d BA , u BA }
as a recommendation
is the opinion of A</p>
      <p>to A.
about the
recommendations of B. The consensus opinion  pAB is held by an
imaginary agent AB representing both A and B.</p>
      <p>
         p      p  {b pAB , d pAB , u pAB }
The output values b,d,u of the combined opinions are derived
from simple algebraic operations. More about this can be found in
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. In our opinion the above considerations of Subjective Logic
are quite sufficient for deriving recommendations with regard to
the rating behavior of users whose subjective trustworthiness can
be computed transitively within the social network of trusted
participants.
      </p>
      <p>In the literature trust is also distinguished into direct and indirect
trust, the former when it is derived from personal experience of a
trustor, and the latter when it is derived from recommendations of
others. Also, another distinction of it is functional trust, which
expresses the trustworthiness for some agent with regard to some
proposition p, and recommendation trust which expresses the
trustworthiness of some agent as a recommender.</p>
      <p>
        In our example depicted in figure 1, Bob has functional trust in
Clarke’s rating behavior, but the trust that can be derived by Alice
for Clark via Bob’s recommendation trust is indirect trust since
Alice does not have her own evidence to support it, but merely
trusts Bob’s taste. Finally, the trust that Alice is interested in
knowing for Clark, is actually an indirect functional trust, which
indicates how much she would trust him for his taste.
As far as the evidence transformation is concerned, various
models for converting ordinary observations into evidence have
been proposed [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ]. For our approach, we have used a simple
model which is best suited to recommender system data [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. In
our work we have come up with a solution of deriving the
trustworthiness that a pair of agents would place in each other by
using existing data such as ratings for items they have gathered
experience with. In the same work an approach for mapping trust
into similarity is also introduced. This is explained below.
For calculating the uncertainty we used the simplified formula:
u  (n  1)1 , in which n denotes the number of common
experiences in a trust relationship between two agents A and B.
The derivation of opinions from existing user experiences with
items can be done by using an appropriate formula such as the
one given below which we used for our experiment. This formula
was used for shaping the belief property (b) of Subjective Logic
from User Similarity (Wa,u) also known as Correlation
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Coefficient.</title>
        <p>b 
The disbelief property d of the opinions can easily be derived
from the remainder of b and u as: d =1-b-u.</p>
        <p>In our case scenario of recommender system the calculated belief
(b) is referred to either recommender or functional trust. In
equation 5 the k value denotes the exponent in the equation used
for transforming the similarity metric into derived belief (k=1 for
linear transformation).</p>
        <p>In the figure below we present pictorially a high level view of our
hybrid system that could take advantage of this idea. The trust
derivation mechanism for predicting the ratings that users would
give to products can be easily embedded into the existing ordinary
system.</p>
        <p>Similarity of Bob
for Clark
Similarity of</p>
        <p>Alice for Bob
Existing Ratings of
Alice, Bob and
Clark</p>
        <p>Direct Trust of
Bob for Clark
Direct Trust of
Alice for Bob
Similarity of Alice
and Clark</p>
        <p>Indirect Trust of
Alice for Clark
Similarity of Alice
for Clark
The part of the diagram shown in dotted line represents the
existing recommendation production mechanism and it applies
only if evidence suffices for computing the similarity of Alice to
Clark.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>4. EVALUATION</title>
      <p>
        We evaluated the performance of our hybrid approach against
various alternatives such as the standard CF technique which
employs the Pearson similarity and uses Resnick’s prediction
formula [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>The results which demonstrate the effectivenes of predicting user
likeness express the ability of the system to identify potentially
unsatisfactory options. Moreover, we introduce a set of metrics to
demonstrate efficiency in terms of sparsity reduction as well as
effectiveness against the cold-start problem.</p>
      <p>For the evaluation we used a subset of a movie recommendation
system called Movielens. This original dataset contains more than
1 million movie recommendations submitted during a period of
812 days by around 6000 users for 3100 movies. To capture the
dynamic characteristics of performance that evolve over time, we
made use of the timestamp (TS) information that is attached on
every submitted rating. We divided the rating experiences into 5
sets, each containing ratings submitted within the same period of
time. Finally, we performed the experiment for each of those sets
separately. As the number of recommendations performed at each
stage is more important to be shown than the timestamp
information we considered as the best solution to present the
(5)
Predicted
rating of
item L for
Alice
adjacent sparsity value. That is the percentage of ratings in the
users by items matrix for which originally no values had been
provided.</p>
      <p>To fulfill the requirement for calculations of similarity to be
stable we assumed that similarity between two users is calculable
only if there are at least 10 items that have been rated by both of
them.</p>
      <p>It is worth mentioning that in the current experiment, no control
has been applied on filtering the number of neighbors that a user
can have, and the only limiting factor for forming a trust
relationship is the number of common experiences that exist.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>4.1 Metrics Used</title>
      <p>
        Predictive Accuracy metrics such as MAE are quite popular for
measuring how close the recommender system’s predicted ratings
are to the true user ratings [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. However, it is also interesting to
know how good the system would be in successfully identifying
the items that users would be unhappy with, and therefore we also
used Classification Accuracy metrics. To justify this decision we
claim that in the way the experiment was done, there were no
rating predictions attempted for items that had no recorded rating
experiences and hence the danger that one might be lead into
classification errors is significantly reduced.
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-6-1">
        <title>4.1.1 Measuring Coverage</title>
        <p>
          With Coverage we refer to the percentage of items for which
predictions can be made and in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ] it is defined as:
        </p>
        <p>C 

aiA
{b  B a j  nai : rj b  }</p>
        <p>B  A
(6)
where A and B are the set of users and products respectively, rj is
a rating function and n(a) denotes the set of similar neighbors of
some user a.</p>
        <p>We introduce one new metric, User Coverage Gain (UCG), to
demonstrate the actual benefit that users receive when they make
use of the trust graph. This metric relates the cost A with the
benefit R, expressed as a ratio of the hybrid system by the
standard CF. It can be computed using the following formula:
1 </p>
        <p>UCG   RAhh   RAss   1 TS (7)
Rh and Rs refer to the number of predictions that the system was
capable of performing for the new users in timestamp TS for the
hybrid and the standard recommender system respectively. Ah
and As refer to the sizes of populations of users which have
made use of the trust network for discovering other participants at
time TS, and correspondingly the adjacent number of users who
would use the standard CF for performing those predictions. The
populations of users are expressed as in formulas (8) and (9). The
formula for Ah is corresponding to the scenario that trust
propagation has been restricted to max distance of 2 hops only,
which is the case for our experiment. The items recommended in
every timestamp can be expressed as in formula (10)</p>
        <p>A  
s
bB
{a  A c  n(a) : ra (b)  rc (b) }
(8)
Ah  bB {aAck n(a),d n(a) 
 d n(ck ): ra (b)  rd (b) }
aiA {b  B : ri (b) }
(9)
(10)
For showing the level of contribution of the trusted participants to
a prediction to be made, we came up with a metric called Trust
Graph Contribution. This metric is presented in formula (11) and
as can be seen it relates the relative increase in the number of
users (due to the use of trust network) used for the produced
recommendations, with the actual number of recommendations
produced. This relative increase is expressed as the ratio of
trusted neighbors by all neighbors (trusted and similar). With
“trusted neighbors” we refer to those users in the social graph for
which their similarity with the querying user was derived by
propagated trust recommendations and was not calculated directly
by correlating the common experiences (ratings) with some
neighbor as it is done for the case of “similar” ones.</p>
        <p>Ctrb   R 1  iR  Ah Ah As TS
(11)
In formula (11), As and Ah are the same as explained before, R is
the set of recommendations produced in some timestamp and is
the sum of Rh and Rs. This metric demonstrates how effective the
discovery of neighbors of interest can be via the social network
and it is interesting to know how it contributes in the performance
improvement.</p>
        <p>Beside new users, items for which there extensive experience is
not available are also affected by the cold-start problem.
Therefore, we found it necessary to measure the improvements
that the hybrid solution would offer to them as well.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-2">
        <title>4.1.2 Measuring Accuracy</title>
        <p>Predictive Accuracy is a standard metric for measuring how close
the predicted ratings are to the true user ratings. In our experiment
we measure the MAE (Mean Average Error) which shows the
absolute deviation between the two. However, as MAE can be
unimportant for showing the performance for items of interest to
users, we considered also using other accuracy metrics in addition
to this.</p>
        <p>Classification Accuracy metrics are used to measure the
frequency with which the system makes incorrect or correct
decisions about whether an item is bad or good and it is usually
applied in connection with the task of finding lists of top items.
As we mentioned previously we consider it more appropriate to
demonstrate how useful the system is in helping users to avoid
making choices of products that they might be unhappy with.
Therefore we used the metric F-score, also called Harmonic</p>
        <sec id="sec-6-2-1">
          <title>Mean, and it is used in information retrieval. F-score measures</title>
          <p>
            the effectiveness of retrieval with respect to the cost of retrieving
the information [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
            ].
          </p>
          <p>It is necessary that the negative (N) and positive (P) instances are
clearly distinguished, and for our particular case we characterize
as N the case of experiences with products that the user would be
unsatisfied with and would give low rating. The opposite case
corresponds to P. Precision is defined as: P  TP and
TP  FP
represents the ratio of instances that were correctly predicted as
non-satisfactory by the user against all instances that were
predicted as non-satisfactory. Recall is: R  TP and
TP  FN
represents the number of instances that were correctly predicted
as non-satisfactory ones normalized by the total number of
instances that actually received unsatisfactory rating. The F-score
that shows the relative tradeoff between the benefits (TP) and the
costs (FP) is calculated using the formula: F  2PR .</p>
          <p>P  R
As rating values of 1 and 2 represent an unfortunate choice and 4
and 5 a successful choice, we used the value 3 as threshold for
considering an experience as unsatisfactory. In table 1 we present
the confusion matrix. We considered as true positives (TP) the
instances that where correctly classified as receiving low rating
and false negatives (FN) those instances that were classified as
having high rating, but still predicted as been non-satisfactory to
the users. True negatives (TN) denote those which were correctly
classified as giving a high rating. Finally, false positives (FP) are
referred to the number of bad items which were mistakenly
classified by the system as satisfactory ones for the new users.
With regard to coverage, only those values which were possible to
compute were considered for contributing to it.</p>
          <p>To study more closely the benefits that our system can offer to the
entities that are mostly affected by the cold-start problem, we
repeated the experiments considering the new items and the new
users alone. To achieve that for every timestamp we filtered and
counted those entities which committed their first experience at
that particular timestamp.</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>4.2 Results – Discussion</title>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>4.2.1 Overall Performance</title>
        <p>With regard to the overall performance of the system, we first
demonstrate the results we obtained for the Coverage Gain and
the Contribution of Trust Graph. In these diagrams, time is
represented by its adjacent sparsity value and is shown across the
horizontal axis.</p>
        <p>In figure 4 is shown how the Contribution of the Trust Graph
develops over the experiment. For every recommendation
produced, the ratio of trusted participants considered for this
recommendation divided by all participants (trusted and similar)
used for the same recommendation is counted and the results are
averaged. As can be seen from the diagram this metric follows in
general a decreasing trend throughout the simulation, but more
importantly, it gets its maximum value towards the beginning
when the trust network is still building up. We interpret this as a
good indication that our system can cope well with the cold start
problem as the resources of the hybrid system are shown to be
exploited better at that timestamp. The decreasing trend followed
afterwards is explained as the effect of gradual replacement of
trust relationships by computed similarity as more and more
recommendations are submitted over time. In the same figure is
shown the benefit of using the hybrid system in terms of User
Coverage Gain in comparison to using the standard Collaborative
Filtering. Interestingly enough, this metric follows an increasing
trend and more importantly it remains unaffected by the
decreasing rate of new users.</p>
        <p>Average Relative Benefit in performing recommendations when</p>
        <p>using the Trust Graph
60
50
40
) 30
%
(b 20
tr
C 10
0
-10
-20
As far as the rating accuracy is concerned the results for both the
classification accuracy (F-score) and predictive accuracy (MAE)
are shown in table 2 and are also graphically presented in figure
5.</p>
        <p>UserCoverage Gain
Contribution of Trust Graph</p>
        <p>For the classification accuracy, the results show that there is quite
a notable advantage of our method over the standard CF in
discovering those items that a user would be unhappy to choose.
As can be seen this advantage appears from early on (first
timestamp), it maximizes at the second timestamp (highest
difference between the F-score values of the standard and hybrid
models) when the data is still quite sparse, and continues so at all
consecutive timestamps. It is interesting to note that this behavior
is very unlikely to be coincidental as it appeared at all five
different datasets we tested.</p>
        <p>One can also see that the predictive accuracy appears to be higher
in the proposed system than in the standard one, but here there is
temporary decrease during the early timestamps.</p>
        <p>Predictive and Classification accuracy for all users
16,5
15,5
16
15
) 14,5
%
(EA 14
M13,5
13
12,5
12
CF (MAE)
Hybrid (MAE)
CF (F-Score)
Hybrid (F-Score)
5
,
7
9
Timestamp - Sparsity (%)</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-2">
        <title>4.2.2 Selective Performance</title>
        <p>Next we present our results which demonstrate the behavior of the
examined systems when considering only the new users and
items. First we demonstrate the sizes of populations of cold-start
users and items that appeared for the first time on each timestamp.
From the diagrams in figure 6 it can be seen that in the case of the
hybrid system, the cold-start users are shown to be committing
their first experience with the hybrid system earlier than in the
standard CF. In the first two timestamps, the number of new users
in the former is higher than in the latter. As expected though, that
trend is declining as the system develops over time. This looks
quite reasonable from the way our experiment was done, as in
contrast to a real world running system, we used restricted size
sets of 100 users.</p>
        <p>The early emergence of new users that appears in the hybrid
system is indicative of its success in exploiting the social network
and performing predictions that wouldn’t be possible in the
conventional one, and hence attract more users. Consequently the
same happens for cold-start items which are now discovered and
rated by users earlier in the hybrid system than in the standard
recommnder system.</p>
        <p>New Items and Users</p>
        <p>CF (Items)
Hybrid (Items)
CF Users
Hybrid (Users)
5
,
7
9
Timestamp - Sparsity (%)
In table 3 we present the prediction and classification accuracy for
cold-start users and items and the results are pictorially presented
in figures 7 and 8. As far as prediction accuracy is concerned,
from the results it can be seen that the deployment of the trust
system into the existing one has no impact on the accuracy of
ratings prediction, as the error is kept low (below 15%) during the
early stages of the system. For the new items the situation looks
quite a lot better as there is no noticeable penalty in the prediction
error against using the standard recommender system. In
comparison to the overall performance results of figure 5, the new
users receive higher benefit (MAE 14.87%) than the average user
(MAE 15.13%) during the early timestamps (at TS:2). However,
this benefit is diluted as the time progresses. Instead, new users
loose this advantage if using the standard system. (MAE:14.56%
opposed to 14.58%).</p>
        <p>Predictive and Classification Accuracy for new Users</p>
        <p>CF(MAE)
Hybrid (MAE)
CF(F-score)
Hybrid (F-score)
16
14
12
6
4
2
0</p>
        <p>Accuracy of predictions of new Items</p>
        <p>CF (MAE)
Hybrid (MAE)
CF (F-score)
Hybrid (F-score)
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
e
r
o
c
‐s
F
800
700
600
500
200
100
0
)% 17
(
E
AM 16
20
19
18
15
14
13
Hybrid
13.52
15.27
15.71
15.72
15.51
0.095
0.167
0.250
0.274
0.291
The growing trend for F-score as it appears in fig. 7 is indicative
of the increasing benefit that new users receive as the system
develops. In comparison to the classification performance for all
users presented in fig. 5, the new users receive higher benefit than
anyone else as they are potentially guided better to avoid products
they will be unhappy with.</p>
        <p>We consider the above two observations as a positive
consequence for the proposed system for compensating the users
early on. It is important that new users receive the highest benefit
as they are assumed to be less tolerant in receiving poor
recommendations. Experiencing poor recommendations
consistently over time may reduce their trust towards the system
and make them reluctant to rely on it for delivering good service.
If the original trust disappears, the users interest in using the
system may vanish altogether.
Finally, it is also important to note the increasing trend in the
average error as seen in fig. 7 which means that new users who
join the system late are less likely to receive good service than
those who join early.</p>
        <p>Regarding classification accuracy for new users and new items,
our measurements show that the proposed hybrid system
outperforms the traditional one at all time instances.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>5. BACKGROUND RESEARCH</title>
      <p>
        Trust has been the subject of investigation by many researchers in
the past for alleviating issues connected with the use of sparse
datasets in recommender systems. Singular Value Decomposition
has been proposed by other researchers and found to be better
than the standard collaborating filtering [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] for alleviating sparsity
problems. Other approaches are based on the idea of removing
global effects and estimating the interpolation weights for each
weighting factor for improving the accuracy of recommender
systems [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Hybrid systems which combine content and
collaboration have also been proposed in which various weights
are set on the contribution of similarity [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. In such an approach,
the weight is dependent on the number of common items. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ],
O’Donovan and Smyth study the effects of using trust models in
the recommendation process and they demonstrate how it behaves
against various attack scenarios. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], a solution for computing
trust in CF systems has been investigated, but in the proposed
model the trustworthiness of the recommender is not taken into
account. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], in the work done by Lathia et.al., it is suggested
that collaboration groups could better be formed by k-trusted
neighbors rather than k-similar ones. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ], the cold-start
problem is approached using some idea based on machine
learning. Massa et al. in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>
        ] has published a similar idea with
ours, but based on different working hypothesis which requires
that users would provide the trust statements themselves. To our
knowledge trust has not been studied adequately so far as a
solution to the cold-start problem. In addition, even though all the
studies performed can demonstrate the advantages of using trust,
they are merely static and do not capture the characteristics of the
community as it evolves. Since the cold-start problem is a time
related issue we chose to demonstrate our proposed solution in a
way that it can be shown if the advantage actually becomes
available when the system needs it the most.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>6. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>We have proposed a hypothetical hybrid recommender system
which uses trust to exploit the latent relationships between users
and we have measured its performance. In this way, also
knowledge that exists at distant participants can be discovered and
used by users who do not need to be known to each other. We
used our modeling technique to build trust from existing evidence.
The evaluation results show a significant benefit against the
standard technique both in terms of coverage and in accuracy of
predictions. It is interesting to note that the benefit is more
distinguishable for new users and items which traditionally are
mostly affected by the sparsity problem. Furthermore, the higher
values achieved for F-score are indicative of improved ability in
protecting users from choosing products that they may not like.
With regard to the challenge of alleviating the cold-start problem,
it can be seen that the benefits of using the trust enabled system
are particularly visible early on when they are actually needed. A
future challenge is to extend even further the period of time that
the benefit is received.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Facebook</given-names>
            <surname>Social</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Network service</article-title>
          , http://www.facebook.com
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>General</given-names>
            <surname>Consumer Review Site</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://www.dealtime.com
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Electronic</given-names>
            <surname>Commerce</surname>
          </string-name>
          Company, http://www.amazon.com
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maltz</surname>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ehrlish</surname>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Pointing the Way: Active Collaborative filtering</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In proc. of CHI-95</source>
          ,pp.
          <fpage>202</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>209</lpage>
          ,New York, ACM Press (
          <year>1995</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sun</surname>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kong</surname>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ye</surname>
            <given-names>S.,</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A Comparison of Several Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering in Startup Stage</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In proc Networking Sensing and Control</source>
          , IEEE, pp.
          <fpage>25</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>28</lpage>
          (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bell</surname>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Koren</surname>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Improved Neighborhood-based Collaborative Filtering</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In proc IEEE International Conference on Data Mining</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>7</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Melville</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mooney</surname>
            <given-names>R.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nagarajan</surname>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Content-Boosted Collaborative Filtering for Improved Recommendations</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In proc of Eighteenth national conf. of Artificial Intelligence</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>187</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>192</lpage>
          , ISBN:
          <fpage>0</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>262</lpage>
          -51129-
          <fpage>0</fpage>
          (
          <year>2002</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Quercia</surname>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heiles</surname>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Carpa L.,
          <article-title>B-trust: Bayesian Trust Framework for Pervasive Computing</article-title>
          .
          <source>In proc 4th International Conf. iTrust 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science</source>
          (Vol.
          <volume>3986</volume>
          /
          <year>2006</year>
          ). Springer, pp.
          <fpage>298</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>312</lpage>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lathia</surname>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hailes</surname>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Carpa</surname>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Trust-Based Collaborative Filtering</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in proc IFIPTM</source>
          , Springer, Vol.
          <volume>263</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>119</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>134</lpage>
          , Trondheim, Norway (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Resnick</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Varian</surname>
            <given-names>H.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Recommender Systems, Communications of the ACM</source>
          .
          <volume>40</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>56</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>58</lpage>
          (
          <year>1997</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jøsang</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A Logic for Uncertain probabilities</article-title>
          ,
          <source>International Journal of Uncertainty, fuzzi-ness &amp; Knowledge based systems</source>
          ,Vol.
          <volume>9</volume>
          , No.
          <volume>3</volume>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pitsilis</surname>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marshall</surname>
            <given-names>L.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Modeling Trust for Recommender Systems Using Similarity Metrics</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in proc. IFIPTM</source>
          , Springer, Vol.
          <volume>263</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>103</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>118</lpage>
          , Trondheim, Norway (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Herlocker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Konstan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Terveen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Riedl</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Trans. Inf. Syst</source>
          .
          <volume>22</volume>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (Jan.
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ziegler</surname>
            <given-names>C-N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Towards Decentralized Recommender Systems, ISBN 363901149X</source>
          , Vdm-Verlag,
          <article-title>(</article-title>
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O</given-names>
            <surname>'Donovan</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Smyth</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>B.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Is trust Robust?: An Analysis of TrustBased Recommendation</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in Proc. of 11th International Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces IUI '06</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>101</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>108</lpage>
          , (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Xuan</surname>
            <given-names>N. L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Thuc</surname>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Trong</surname>
            <given-names>D. L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Anh D. D.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Addressing coldstart problem in recommendation systems</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in Proc. of the 2nd international conf. on Ubiquitous information management and communication, Jan.31-Feb</source>
          .01,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Suwon</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Korea, (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <article-title>General consumer review site</article-title>
          . http://www.epinions.com,
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Golbeck</surname>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hendler</surname>
            <given-names>J.. Inferring Trust</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Relationships in WebBased Social Networks</article-title>
          ,
          <source>ACM Transactions on Internet Technology</source>
          ,
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ). (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Josang</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bhuiyan</surname>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Xu</surname>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cox</surname>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Combining Trust and Reputation Management for Web-Based Services</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in Proc. of the 5th international conf. on Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business</source>
          ,Turin, Italy, pp.
          <fpage>90</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>99</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          [20]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Victor</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cornelis</surname>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Teredesai</surname>
            <given-names>A. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>De Cock</surname>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Whom should I trust?: the impact of key figures on cold start recommendations</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In proc. SAC '08: ACM symposium on Applied computing</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>2014</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>2018</lpage>
          . (
          <year>2008</year>
          ),
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          [21]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kamwar</surname>
            <given-names>S. D</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schlosser</surname>
            <given-names>M. T</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hector</surname>
            <given-names>Garcia-Molina.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          “
          <article-title>The EigenTrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks”</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web</source>
          , Budapest, Hungary,
          <fpage>640</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>651</lpage>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          [22]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shafer</surname>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>A Mathematical Theory of Evidence</source>
          , Princeton University Press (
          <year>1976</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          [23]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Massa</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Avesani</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Trust Aware Bootstrapping of Recommender Systems, in proc. ECAI Workshop on Recommender Systems</source>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>