Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
The study of consumer psychology reveals two categories of consumption decision procedures: compensatory rules and non-compensatory rules. Existing recommendation models which are based on latent factor models assume the consumers follow the compensatory rules, i.e. they evaluate an item over multiple aspects and compute a weighted or/and summated score which is used to derive the rating or ranking of the item. However, it has been shown in the literature of consumer behavior that, consumers adopt non-compensatory rules more often than compensatory rules. Our main contribution in this paper is to study the unexplored area of utilizing non-compensatory rules in recommendation models. Our general assumptions are (1) there are K universal hidden aspects. In each evaluation session, only one aspect is chosen as the prominent aspect according to user preference. (2) Evaluations over prominent and non-prominent aspects are non-compensatory. Evaluation is mainly based on item performance on the prominent aspect. For non-prominent aspects the user sets a minimal acceptable threshold. We give a conceptual model for these general assumptions. We show how this conceptual model can be realized in both pointwise rating prediction models and pair-wise ranking prediction models. Experiments on real-world data sets validate that adopting non-compensatory rules improves recommendation performance for both rating and ranking models. |
Year | Venue | Field |
|---|---|---|
2019 | THIRTY-THIRD AAAI CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE / THIRTY-FIRST INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE / NINTH AAAI SYMPOSIUM ON EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | Recommender system,Data set,Ranking,Conceptual model,Computer science,Consumer behaviour,Artificial intelligence,Factor analysis,Predictive modelling,Machine learning,Pointwise |
DocType | Citations | PageRank |
Conference | 0 | 0.34 |
References | Authors | |
0 | 5 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chen Lin | 1 | 239 | 17.83 |
| Xiaolin Shen | 2 | 0 | 0.68 |
| Si Chen | 3 | 6 | 2.20 |
| Muhua Zhu | 4 | 225 | 19.59 |
| Yanghua Xiao | 5 | 482 | 54.90 |