Handbook of Multimedia for Digital Entertainment and Arts- P2 pps

16 G Lekakos et al Fig Method selection in MoRe Fig Ranked list of movie recommendations Recommendation Algorithms Pure Collaborative Filtering Our collaborative filtering engine applies the typical neighbourhood-based algorithm [8], divided into three steps: (a) computation of similarities between the target and the remaining of the users, (b) neighborhood development and (c) computation of prediction based on weighted average of the neighbors’ ratings on the target item Personalized Movie Recommendation 17 For the first step, as formula illustrates, the Pearson correlation coefficient is used P Xi X Yi Y i r D rP (1) 2P Xi X Yi Y i i where Xi and Yi are the ratings of users X and Y for movie I , while X, Y refer to the mean values of the available ratings for the users X and Y However, in the MoRe implementation we used formula 2, given below, which is equivalent to formula but it computes similarities faster since it does not need to compute the mean rating values n represents the number of commonly rated movies by users X and Y P P P n XiYi Xi Y i i i i rDs (2)  Ã2 s  Ã2 P P P P n Xi Xi n Yi Yi i i i i Note that in the above formulas if either user has evaluated all movies with identical ratings the result is a “divide by zero” error and therefore we decided to ignore users with such ratings In addition, we devaluate the contribution of neighbors with less than 50 commonly rated movies by applying a significance weight of n=50 , where n is the number of ratings in common [32] At the neighborhood development step of the collaborative filtering process we select neighbors with positive correlation to the target user In order to increase the accuracy of the recommendations, prediction for a movie is produced only if the neighbourhood consists of at least neighbors To compute an arithmetic prediction for a movie, the weighted average of all neighbors’ ratings is computed using formula P N Ki D K C J i N J /rKJ J 2Neighbours P jrKJ j (3) J N where Ki is the prediction for movie i , K is the average mean of target user’s ratings, N Ji is the rating of neighbour J for the movie i , J is the average mean of neighbour J s ratings and rKJ is the Pearson correlation measure for the target user and her neighbor J Pure Content-Based Filtering In the content-based prediction we consider as features all movie contributors (cast, directors, writers, and producers), the genre, and the plot words Features that appear 18 G Lekakos et al in only one movie are ignored Each movie is represented by a vector, the length of which is equal to the number of non-unique features of all available movies The elements of the vector state the existence or non-existence (Boolean) of a specific feature in the description of the movie To calculate the similarity of two movies, we use the cosine similarity measure computed in formula and bi are the values of the i -th elements of vectors E a and b E P bi a b E E i E D cos.E ; b/ a D rP rP (4) E kE k kbk a bi2 i i The algorithm we use to produce recommendations is an extension of the top-N item-based algorithm that is described by Karypis in [33] Since the movie set does not change dynamically when the system is online, the similarities between all pairs of movies in the dataset are pre-computed off-line and for each movie the k-most similar movies are recorded, along with their corresponding similarity values When a user that has rated positively (i.e four or five) a set U of movies, asks for recommendations, a set C of candidate movies for recommendation is created as the union of the k-most similar movies for each movie j U , excluding movies already in U The next step is to compute the similarity of each movie c C to the set U as the sum of the similarities between c C and all movies j U Finally, the movies in C are sorted with respect to that similarity Figure graphically represents the contentbased prediction process Note that typically content-based recommendation is based upon the similarities between item’ features and user’s profile consisting of preferences on items’ features Instead, Karypis computes similarities between items upon all users’ ratings completely ignoring item features This approach is also known as item-to-item correlation and is regarded as content-based retrieval We extend Karypis’ algorithm by utilizing the movies’ features rather than the user’ ratings to find the most similar movies to the ones that the user has rated positively in the past and therefore we preserve the term content-based filtering Since we are interested in numerical ratings in order to combine content-based and collaborative filtering predictions, we extend Karypis’ algorithm (which is designed for binary ratings) as follows Let MaxSim and MinSim be the maximum and minimum similarities for each movie in c C to U and S i mi the similarity of a movie Mi to the set U The numerical prediction Pri for the movie is computed by formula .S i mi MinSim/ Pri D C1 (5) MaxSim MinSim/ Formula above normalizes similarities from ŒMaxSim; MinSim to Œ1; 5, which is the rating scale used in collaborative filtering For example, if S i mi D 0:8, MinSim D 0:1, and MaxSim D 0:9 then Pri D 4:5 Note that the formula applies for any similarity value (above or below one) Due to the fact that movie similarities are computed offline, we are able to produce content-based recommendations much faster than collaborative filtering Personalized Movie Recommendation 19 Fig Content-based filtering prediction process recommendations Moreover, in contrast to collaborative filtering, content-based predictions can always be produced for the specific dataset In addition, we implemented content-based ltering using the Naăve Bayes algo rithm Each of the five numerical ratings is considered as a class label and prediction u for an item is computed using formula 6: uD P uj arg max uj ef1;2;3;4;5g m Y P juj (6) i D0 where uj is the rating provided by the user uj D 1; 2; 3; 4; , P.uj / is the probability that any item can be rated by the user with uj (computed by the available user ratings), m is the number of terms used in the description of the items and P.ai juj / is the probability to find in the item’s description the term when it has been rated with uj The probability P.ai juj / is computed by formula P juj D ni C n C jVocabularyj (7) 20 G Lekakos et al where n is the total number of occurrences of all terms that are used for the description of the items and have been rated with uj , nj is the frequency of appearance of the term in the n terms and jVocabularyj is the number of unique terms appearing in all items that have been rated by the user The Naăve Bayes algorithm has ı been successfully used in the book recommendation domain [18] Hybrid Recommendation Methods The proposed hybrid recommendation method is implemented in two variations The first one, called substitute, aims to utilize collaborative filtering as the main prediction method and switch to content-based when collaborative filtering predictions cannot be made The use of collaborative filtering as the primary method is based on the superiority of collaborative filtering in multiple application fields, as well as in the movie domain [29, 30] Content-based predictions are triggered when the neighborhood size of the target user consists of less than users This approach is expected to increase both the prediction accuracy as well as the prediction coverage Indeed, the collaborative filtering algorithm described above requires at least five neighbors for the target user in order to make a prediction This requirement increases the accuracy of the collaborative filtering method itself (compared to the typical collaborative filtering algorithm) but leads to a prediction failure when it is not met For these items (for which prediction cannot be made) content-based prediction is always feasible and therefore the overall accuracy of the substitute hybrid algorithm is expected to improve compared to collaborative filtering as well as content-based filtering Although this approach is also expected to improve prediction coverage, the time required to make predictions may increase due to the additional steps required by the content-based algorithm However, this delay may be practically insignificant since the time needed to make content-based recommendations is significantly shorter than the time to produce recommendations with collaborative filtering The second variation of the proposed hybrid approach, called switching, is based on the number of available ratings for the target user as the switching criterion Collaborative filtering prediction is negatively affected when few ratings are available for the target user In contrast, content-based method deal with this problem more effectively since predictions can be produced even upon few ratings The switching hybrid uses collaborative filtering as the main recommendation method and triggers a content-based prediction when the number of available ratings falls below a fixed threshold This threshold value can be experimentally determined and for the specific dataset has been set to 40 ratings In terms of prediction coverage the switching hybrid is not expected to differ significantly from the collaborative filtering prediction, since content-based filtering may be applied even if a collaborative filtering prediction can be produced, in contrast to the substitute hybrid which triggers content-based prediction upon the Personalized Movie Recommendation 21 “failure” of collaborative filtering to make predictions Although the two variations above follow the exactly the same approach having collaborative filtering as their main recommendation method, they differ in the switching criterion Experimental Evaluation The objective of the experimental evaluation is to compare the two versions of the hybrid algorithm against each other as well as against the base algorithms (collaborative and content-based filtering) The comparison is performed in terms of predictive accuracy, coverage and actual time required for real-time predictions Moreover, since pure collaborative filtering, implemented in MoRe, adopts a neighborhood-size threshold (5 neighbors) we will examine its performance against the typical collaborative filtering method without the neighborhood size restriction We will also demonstrate that the number of features used to describe the movies plays an important role in the prediction accuracy of the content-based algorithm The evaluation measures utilized for estimating prediction accuracy is the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) The Mean Absolute Error [2] is a suitable measure of precision for systems that use numerical user ratings and numerical predictions If r1 ; : : : ; rn are the real values of user in the test, p1 ; : : : ; pn are the predicted values for the same ratings and E D "1 ; : : : ; "n D fp1 r1 ; : : : ; pn rn g are the errors, then the Mean Absolute Error is computed by formula ˇ ˇ MAE D ˇE ˇ D n P j"i j iD0 n (8) In the experimental process the original dataset is separated in two subsets randomly selected: a training set containing the 80% of ratings of each available user and a test set including the remaining 20% of the ratings Furthermore, available user ratings have been split in the two subsets The ratings that belong to the test set are ignored by the system and we try to produce predictions for them using only the remaining ratings of the training set To compare the MAE values of the different recommendation methods and to verify that the differences are statistically significant we apply non-parametric Wilcoxon rank test, in the 99% confidence space (since normality requirement or parametric test is not met) The MAE for the pure collaborative filtering method is 0.7597 and the coverage 98.34% The MAE value for collaborative filtering method (without the neighborhood size restriction) is 0.7654 and the respective coverage 99.2% The p-value of the Wilcoxon test (p D 0:0002) indicates a statistically significant difference suggesting that the restriction to produce prediction for a movie only if the neighbourhood consists of at least neighbours lead to more accurate predictions, but scarifies a portion of coverage 22 Table Number of features and prediction accuracy G Lekakos et al Case Threshold (movies) 10 15 MAE 0.9253 0.9253 0.9275 0.9555 0.9780 Number of features 10626 10620 7865 5430 3514 The pure content-based predictor presents MAE value 0.9253, which is significantly different (p D 0:000) than collaborative filtering The coverage is 100%, since content-based predictions ensures that prediction can always be produced for every movie (provided that the target user has rated at least one movie) In the above experiment we used a word as a feature if it appeared in the description of at least two movies We calculated the accuracy of the predictions when this threshold value is increased to three, five, ten and fifteen movies, as shown in Table Comparing cases and above we notice no significant differences, while the difference between and 3, 4, (p D 0:0000 for all cases) cases are statistically significant Thus, we may conclude that the number of features that are used to represent the movies is an important factor of the accuracy of the recommendations and, more specifically, the more features are used, the more accurate the recommendations are Note that Naăve Bayes algorithm performed poorly in terms of accuracy with ı MAE D 1:2434 We improved its performance when considered ratings above as positive ratings and below as negative (MAE D 1:118) However, this error is still significantly higher than the previous implementation and therefore we exclude it from the development of the hybrid approaches Substitute hybrid recommendation method was designed to achieve 100% coverage The MAE of the method was calculated to be 0.7501, which is a statistically important improvement of the accuracy of pure collaborative filtering (p < 0:00001) The coverage of the switching hybrid recommendation method is 98.8%, while the MAE is 0.7702, which is a statistically different in relevance to substitute hybrid and pure collaborative filtering methods (p D 0:000) This method produces recommendations of less accuracy than both pure collaborative filtering and substitute hybrid, has greater coverage than the first and lower that the latter method, but it produces recommendations in reduced time than both methods above Even though recommendation methods are usually evaluated in terms of accuracy and coverage, the reduction of execution time might be considered more important for a recommender system designer, in particular in a system with a large number of users and/or items Table depicts the MAE values, coverage and time required for real-time prediction (on a Pentium machine running at 3.2 GHz with GB RAM) for all four recommendation methods Note that the most demanding algorithm in terms of resources for real-time prediction is collaborative filtering If similarities are computed between the target and Personalized Movie Recommendation Table MAE, coverage, and prediction time for the recommendation methods Pure Collaborative Filtering Pure Content-based Recommendations Substitute hybrid recommendation method Switching hybrid recommendation method 23 MAE 0.7597 Coverage 98.34% run time prediction 14 sec 0.9253 100% sec 0.7501 100% 16 sec 0.7702 98.8% 10 sec the remaining users at prediction time then its complexity is O nm/ for n users and m items This may be reduced at O m/ if similarities for all pairs or users are pre-computed with an off-line cost O n2 m However, such a pre-computation step affects one of the most important characteristics of collaborative filtering, which is its ability to incorporate the most up-to-date ratings in the prediction process In domains where rapid changes in user interests are not likely to occur the off-line computation step may be a worthwhile alternative Conclusions and Future Research The above empirical results provide useful insights concerning collaborative and content-based filtering as well as their combination under the substitute and switching hybridization mechanisms Collaborative filtering remains one of the most accurate recommendation methods but for very large datasets the scalability problem may be considerable and a similarities pre-computation phase may reduce the run-time prediction cost The size of target user’s neighbourhood does affect the accuracy of recommendations Setting the minimum number of neighbors to improves prediction accuracy but at a small cost in coverage Content-based recommendations are significantly less accurate than collaborative filtering, but are produced much faster In the movie recommendation domain, the accuracy depends on the number of features that are used to describe the movies The more features there are, the more accurate the recommendations Substitute hybrid recommendation method improves the performance of collaborative filtering in both terms of accuracy and coverage Although the difference in coverage with collaborative filtering on the specific dataset and with specific conditions (user rated at least 20 movies, zero weight threshold value) is rather insignificant, it has been reported that this is not always the case, in particular when increasing the weight threshold value [32] On the other hand, the switching hybrid 24 G Lekakos et al recommendation method fails to improve the accuracy of collaborative filtering, but significantly reduces execution time The MoRe system is specifically designed for movie recommendations but its collaborative filtering engine may be used for any type of content The evaluation of the algorithms implemented in the MoRe system was based on a specific dataset which limits the above conclusions in the movie domain It would be very interesting to evaluate the system on alternative datasets in other domains as well in order to examine the generalization ability of our conclusions As future research it would also be particularly valuable to perform an experimental evaluation of the system, as well as the proposed recommendations methods, by human users This would allow for checking whether the small but statistically significant differences on recommendation accuracy are detectable by the users Moreover, it would be useful to know which performance factor (accuracy, coverage or execution time) is considered to be the most important by the users, since that kind of knowledge could set the priorities of our future research Another issue that could be subject for future research is the way of the recommendations presented to the users, the layout of the graphical user interface and how this influences the user ratings Although there exist some studies on these issues (e.g [34]), it is a fact that the focus in recommender system research is on the algorithms that are used in the recommendation techniques References D Goldberg, D Nichols, B.M Oki, and D Terry, “Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry,” Communications of the ACM Vol 35, No 12, December, 1992, p.p 61-70 U Shardanand, and P Maes, “Social Information Filtering: Algorithms for Automating “Word of Mouth”,” Proceedings of the ACM CH’95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, 1995, p.p 210-217 B N Miller, I Albert, S K Lam, J Konstan, and J Riedl, “MovieLens Unplugged: Experiences with an Occasionally Connected Recommender System,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 2003 W Hill, L Stead, M Rosenstein, and G Furnas, “Recommending and Evaluating Choices in a Virtual Community of Use,” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1995, p.p 174-201 Z Yu, and X Zhou, “TV3P: An Adaptive Assistant for Personalized TV,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol 50, No 1, 2004, p.p 393-399 D O’Sullivan, B Smyth, D C Wilson, K McDonald, and A Smeaton, “Improving the Quality of the Personalized Electronic Program Guide,” User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction;Vol 14, No 1, 2004, p.p 5-36 S Gutta, K Kuparati, K Lee, J Martino, D Schaffer, and J Zimmerman, “TV Content Recommender System,” Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, 2000, p.p 1121-1122 P Resnick, N Iacovou, M Suchak, P Bergstrom, and J Riedl, “GroupLens: An Open Architecture for Collaborative Filtering of NetNews,” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1994, p.p 175-186 Personalized Movie Recommendation 25 J Konstan, B Miller, D Maltz, J Herlocker, L Gordon, and J Riedl, “GroupLens: Applying Collaborative Filtering to Usenet News,” Communications of the ACM, Vol 40, No 3, 1997, p.p 77-87 10 G Linden, B Smith, and J York, “Amazon.com Recommendations: Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering,” IEEE Internet Computing, Vol 7, No 1, January-February, 2003, p.p 76-80 11 G Lekakos, and G M Giaglis, “A Lifestyle-based Approach for Delivering Personalized Advertisements in Digital Interactive Television,” Journal Of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol 9, No 2, 2004 12 B Smyth, and P Cotter, “A Personalized Television Listings Service,” Communications of the ACM;Vol.43, No 8, 2000, p.p 107-111 13 G Lekakos, and G Giaglis, “Improving the Prediction Accuracy of Recommendation Algorithms: Approaches Anchored on Human Factors,” Interacting with Computers, Vol 18, No 3, May, 2006, p.p 410-431 14 J Schafer, D Frankowski, J Herlocker, and S Shilad, “Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems,” The Adaptive Web, 2007, p.p 291-324 15 J S Breese, D Heckerman, and D Kadie, “Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, July, 1998, p.p 43-52 16 J Herlocker, J Konstan, and J Riedl, “An Empirical Analysis of Design Choices in Neighborhood-Base Collaborative Filtering Algorithms,” Information Retrieval, Vol 5, No 4, 2002, p.p 287-310 17 K Goldberg, T Roeder, D Guptra, and C Perkins, “Eigentaste: A Constant-Time Collaborative Filtering Algorithm,” Information Retrieval, Vol 4, No 2, 2001, p.p 133-151 18 R J Mooney, and L Roy, “Content-based Book Recommending Using Learning for Text Categorization,” Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference in Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, 2000, p.p 195-204 19 M Balabanovic, and Y Shoham, “Fab: Content-based Collaborative Recommendation,” Communications of the ACM, Vol 40, No 3, 1997, p.p 66-72 20 M Pazzani, and D Billsus, “Learning and Revising User Profiles: The identification of interesting Web sites,” Machine Learning, Vol 27, No 3, 1997, p.p 313-331 21 M Balabanovic, “An Adaptive Web Page Recommendation Service,” Proceedings of the ACM First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Ray, California, 1997, p.p 378-385 22 M Pazzani, and D Billsus, “Content-based Recommendation Systems,” The Adaptive Web, 2007, p.p 325-341 23 B Sarwar, G Karypis, J Konstan, and J Riedl, “Analysis of Recommendation Algorithms for E-Commerce,” Proceedings of ACM E-Commerce, 2000, p.p 158-167 24 R Burke, “Hybrid Recommender Systems: Survey and Experiments,” User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, Vol 12, No 4, November, 2002, p.p 331-370 25 M Claypool, A Gokhale, T Miranda, P Murnikov, D Netes, and M Sartin, “Combining Content-Based and Collaborative Filters in an Online Newspaper,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Workshop on Recommender Systems, Berkeley, CA, 1999, http://www.csee.umbc.edu/ ian/sigir99-rec/ 26 I Schwab, W Pohl, and I Koychev, “Learning to Recommend from Positive Evidence,” Proceedings of the Intelligent User Interfaces, New Orleans, LA, 2000, p.p 241-247 27 M Pazzani, “A Framework for Collaborative, Content-Based and Demographic Filtering,” Artificial Intelligence Review, Vol 13, No 5-6, December, 1999, p.p 393-408 28 R Burke, “Hybrid Web Recommender Systems,” The Adaptive Web, 2007, p.p 377-408 29 C Basu, H Hirsh, and W Cohen, “Recommendation as Classification: Using Social and Content-based Information in Recommendation,” Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, 1998, p.p 714-720 30 J Alspector, A Koicz, and N Karunanithi, “Feature-based and Clique-based User Models for Movie Selection: A Comparative study,” User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, Vol 7, no 4, September, 1997, p.p 297-304 Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 31 Content Profiling Content profiling can be considered as the addition of metadata that represents the content or indexing it for retrieval purposes It is often referred to as tagging, labeling, or annotation Essentially, there are two types of tagging methods—manual tagging and automatic tagging In manual tagging, the metadata is manually fed as the input by professionals or voluntary users In automatic tagging, the metadata is generated and added automatically by the computer In the case of textual content, keywords are automatically extracted from the content data by using a text mining approach In the case of audiovisual (AV) content, various features are extracted from the content itself by employing digital signal processing technologies However, even in the case of AV content, text mining is often used to assign keywords from the editorial text or a Web site In both manual and automatic approaches, it is important for the recommendation system to add effective metadata that can help classify the user’s taste or perception For example, with respect to musical content, the song length may not be important metadata to represent the user’s taste Manual Tagging Until now, musical content metadata (Figure 3) have been generated by manual tagging All Media Guide (AMG) [9] offers a musical content metadata by professional music critics They have over 200 mood keywords for music tracks They classify each music genre into hundreds of subgenres For example, rock music has over 180 subgenres AMG also stores some emotional metadata, which is useful to analyze artist relationships, search similar music, and classify the user’s taste in detail However, the problem with manual tagging is the time and cost involved Pandora [10] is well known for its personalized radio channel service This service is based on manually labeled songs from the Music Genome Project; according to their Web site, it took them years to label songs from 10,000 artists, and these songs were listened to and classified by musicians According to the AMG home page, they have a worldwide network of more than 900 staff and freelance writers specializing in music, movies, and games Similarly, Gracenote [11] has also achieved huge commercial success as a music metadata provider The approach involves the use of voluntary user input and the service—compact disc database (CDDB)—is a de facto standard in the music metadata industry for PCs and mobile music players According to Gracenote’s Web site, the CDDB already contains the metadata for 55 million tracks and million CDs spanning more than 200 countries and territories and 80 languages; interestingly, Gracenote employs less than 200 employees This type of approach is often referred to as user-generated content tagging 32 N Kamimaeda et al Fig Example of a song’s metadata Automatic Tagging 1) Automatic Tagging from Textual Information In textual-content-based tagging, key terms are extracted automatically from the textual content This technique is used for extracting keywords not only from the textual content but also from the editorial text; this explains its usability with respect to tagging the AV content “TV Kingdom” [12] is a TV content recommendation service in Japan; it extracts specific keywords from the description text provided in the electronic program guide (EPG) data and uses it as additional metadata This is because the EPG data provided by the supplier are not as effectively structured as metadata and are therefore insufficient for recommendation purposes [13] TV Kingdom employs the term frequency/inverse document frequency (TF/IDF) method to extract keywords from the EPG TF/IDF is a text mining technique that identifies individual terms in a collection of documents and uses them as specific keywords The TF/IDF procedure can be described as follows: Step 1: Calculate the term frequency (tf ) of a term in a document freq.i; j / D frequency of occurenceof term ti indocument Dj The following formula is practically used to reduce the impact of highfrequency terms tfji D log.1 C freq.i; j // Step 2: Calculate the inverse document frequency (idf ): idf i reflects the presumed importance of term ti for the content representation in document Dj N idf i D ni Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 33 where ni D number of documents in the collection to which term tj is assigned N D collection size: The following formula is practically used to reduce the impact of large values Á N idf i D log n i Step 3: The product of each factor is applied as the weight of the term in this document wj D tfij idf i i Google [14] is the most popular example of automatic tagging based on textual information Google’s Web robots are software modules that crawl through the Web sites on the Internet, extract keywords from the Web documents, and index them automatically by employing text mining technology These robots also label the degree of importance of each Web page by employing a link structure analysis; this is referred to as Page Rank [15] 2) Automatic Tagging from Visual Information Research on content-based visual information retrieval systems has been undertaken since the early 1990s These systems extract content features from an image or video signal and index them Two types of visual information retrieval systems exist One is “query by features”; here, sample images or sketches are used for retrieval purposes The other is “query by semantics”; here, the user can retrieve visual information by submitting queries like “a red car is running on the road.” Adding tags to image or video content is more complex than adding tags to textual content Certain researches have suggested that video content is more complex than a text document with respect to six criteria: resolution, production process, ambiguity in interpretation, interpretation effort, data volume, and similarity [16] For example, the textual description of an image only provides very abstract details It is well known that a picture is worth a thousand words Furthermore, video content—a temporal sequence of many images—provides higher-level details that a text document cannot yield Therefore, query by semantics, which is a content-based semantic-level tagging technique, is still a complex and challenging topic Nevertheless, query-by-feature approaches such as QBIC and VisualSEEK achieve a certain level of performance with regard to visual content retrieval [17], [18] This approach extracts various visual features including color distribution, texture, shape, and spatial information, and provides similarity-based image retrieval; this is referred to as “query by example.” In order to search for a similar image, the distance measure between images should be defined in the feature space, and this is also a complex task A simple example of distance measure using color histograms is shown in Figure in order to provide an understanding of the complexity involved in determining the similarity between images This figure shows three grayscale images and their color histograms in Panel a, Panel b, and Panel c It may appear that Image (b) is similar 34 N Kamimaeda et al Fig Typical grayscale image sample Fig Minkowski distance measure to Image (a) rather than Image (c) However, simple Minkowski distance reveals that Image (b) has greater similarity to Image (c) than Image (a), as shown in Figure There exists a semantic gap between this distance measure and human perception In order to overcome this type of problem, various distance measures have been proposed, such as earth mover’s distance (EMD) [19] JSEG outlines a technique for spatial analysis using the image segmentation method to determine the typical color distributions of image segments [20] In addition to the global-color-based features mentioned above, image recognition technology is also useful for image tagging A robust recognition algorithm of object recognition from multiple viewpoints has also been proposed [21] The detection and indexing of objects contained in images enable the query-byexample service with a network-connected camera such as one on a mobile phone Face recognition and detection technologies also have potential for image tagging Sony’s “Picture Motion Browser” [22] employs various video feature extraction Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 35 technologies including face-recognition to provide smart video browsing features such as personal highlight search and video summarization A hybrid method merging both local features from image recognition technology and global-color-based feature will enhance the accuracy of image retrieval Many researches pursue the goal of sports video summarization because sports video has a typical and predictable temporal structure and recurring events of similar types such as corner kicks and shots at goal in soccer games Furthermore, consistent features and fixed number of views allow us to employ less complex content model than those necessary for ordinary movie or TV drama content Most of the solutions involve the combination of the specific local features such as line mark, global visual features and also employ audio features such as high-energy audio segment 3) Automatic Tagging from Audio Information In addition to images, there are various approaches for achieving audio feature extraction by employing digital signal processing In the MPEG-7 standard, audio features are split into two levels—“low-level descriptor” and “high-level descriptor.” However, a “mid-level descriptor” is also required to understand automatic tagging technologies for audio information Low-level features are signal-parameter-level features such as basic spectral features Mid-level features are musical-theory-level features, for example, tempo, key, and chord progression, and other features such as musical structure (chorus part, etc.), vocal presence, and musical instrument timbre High-level features such as mood, genre, and activity are more generic The EDS system extracts mid- and high-level features from an audio signal [23] It involves the generation of high-level features by combining low-level features The system automatically discovers an optimal feature extractor for the targeted high-level features, such as the musical genre, by employing a machine learning technology The twelve-tone analysis is an alternative approach for audio feature extraction; it analyzes the audio signal based on the principles of musical theory The baseband audio signal is transformed into the time–frequency domain and split into 1/12 octave signals The system can extract mid- and high-level features by analyzing the progression of the twelve-tone signal patterns Sony’s hard-disk-based audio system “Giga Juke” [24] provides smart music browsing capabilities based on features such as mood channel and similar song search by the twelve-tone analysis Musical fingerprinting (FP) also extracts audio features, but it is used for accurate music identification rather than for retrieving similar music Figure shows the framework of the FP process [25] Similar to the abovementioned feature extraction procedures, FP extracts audio features by digital signal processing, but it generates a more compact signature that summarizes an audio recording FP is therefore capable of satisfying the requirements of both fast retrieval performance and compact footprint to reduce memory space overhead Gracenote and Shazam [26] are two well-known FP technologies and music identification service providers 36 N Kamimaeda et al Fig FP framework Context Learning A mobile terminal is a suitable device for detecting the user’s context because it is always carried by the user In the future, user contexts such as time, location, surrounding circumstances, personal mood, and activity can be or will be determined by mobile terminals Therefore, if the user context can be identified, relevant information or context-suitable content can be provided to the user The user’s location (physical position) can be easily detected by employing a GPS-based method or cell-network-based positioning technology The latter encompasses several solutions such as timing advance (CGICTA), enhanced CGI (E-CGI), cell ID for WCDMA, uplink time difference of arrival (U-TDOA), and any time interrogation (ATI) [27] The detection of the surrounding circumstances is a challenging issue One of the approaches has proposed the detection of the surrounding circumstances by using ambient audio and video signals [28] A 180ı wide-angle lens is used for visual pattern learning for different circumstances or events such as walking into a building or walking down a busy street Personal mood detection is also an interesting and challenging topic Nowadays, gyrosensor (G-sensor) devices are used in commercial computer gaming systems, wherein user movement can be detected; G-sensors can therefore detect user activity such as whether she/he is running, walking, sitting, or dancing User Preference Learning User preferences can be understood by studying the user’s response to the content A computer system cannot understand user tastes without accessing user listening and watching logs or acquiring certain feedback For example, people who always listen to classical and ethnic music may prefer such genres and might seem to prefer acoustic music over electronic music People who read the book “The Fundamentals of Financing” might be interested in career development or might attempt to invest in some venture capitals to avail of a high return for their investments Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 37 To realize this type of user preference learning, the system must judge whether the user’s feedback regarding the content is positive or negative After judging whether the feedback provided is positive or negative, the system can learn the user’s preferences based on the content’s metadata There are two types of user feedback—explicit and implicit “Initial voluntary input of a user’s preference regarding the registration process” or “clicking the like/dislike button” are examples of explicit feedback “Viewing detailed information on the content,” “purchasing logs of an e-commerce site,” and “operation logs such as play or skip buttons for AV content” are examples of implicit feedback Generally, the recommendation systems emphasize upon explicit rather than implicit feedback After the “like” or “dislike” rating is determined, the system adds or subtracts certain points to or from each attribute, respectively In a “vector space model” (VSM) (introduced later), the user preference is expressed as an n-dimensional attribute vector based on this process In the probabilistic algorithm (also introduced in the subsequent section), user preference is expressed in terms of probabilistic parameters in addition to the attribute value For example, if a user is satisfied with 60 jazz songs per 100 recommended songs, the probabilistic parameter is expressed as P(likejgenre D jazz/ D 60=100 D 0:6 Matching There are two types of matching approaches—exact matching and similarity matching The former seeks contents with the same metadata as that of the search query, such as keywords or tags The latter seeks contents with metadata similar to that of the search query In this section, two types of similarity calculation methodsVSM and naăve Bayesian classier (NB)—are introduced; however, there are several ı other exact matching and similarity matching methods 1) VSM One of the simplest approaches for similarity calculation is using the VSM This model measures the distance between vectors The most practical distance measure is the cosine distance, as shown in Figure For example, user preference (UP) and Fig Example of Similarity in VSM 38 N Kamimaeda et al content profile (CP) are expressed as an n-dimensional feature vector in the VSM The similarity between UP and CP is usually defined as follows: Á E E U C E E si m U ; C D cos  D E E jU jjC j where E U D u1 ; u2 ; ; ; un / user preference vector E C D c1 ; c2 ; ; ; cn / contents profile vector 2) NB Classifier NB is a probabilistic approach to classify data or infer a hypothesis It is also practically used in recommendation systems [29] Let us apply NB to measure the similarity between user preference and content profile In NB, the initial probabilities of the user’s tastes are determined from the training data For example, if a user is satisfied with 60 jazz songs per 100 recommended songs, the conditional probability P(likejgenre D jazz) D 0.6 If she/he is satisfied with 80 acoustic songs per 100 recommended songs, P(like j timbre D acoustic) D 0.8 Therefore, we can hypothesize that the user likes acoustic jazz music After the learning phase, NB can classify the new songs based on the user’s tastes, i.e., whether she/he likes these songs or not For this, NB calculates which class maximizes P cjs/, as shown in (1); here, s is the content vector expressed in terms of the attribute values (a1, a2, a3, , an) c D arg max P cjE/ D arg max O s c c P Ejc/P c/ s D arg max P c/P Ejc/ s P E/ s (1) where c D estimated class (like or dislike) O c D class (like or dislike) s D a1 ; a2 ; ; ; ; an / content (song) vector expressed by its attribute vector E Bayes theorem: The posterior probability p.hjD/ given D P hjD/ D P D= h/P h/ P D/ (2) In (1), the probability P c/ can be easily estimated by counting the frequency in the training phase However, it is difficult to calculate P sjc/ D P a1; a2; a3; : : :; anjc/ Since there are several possible combinations of attributes, a large number of training sets is required In order to resolve this problem, NB assumes a very simple rule: the values of the attributes are conditionally independent, as shown in (2) Therefore, by substituting (3) in (1), NB can be simply expressed Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 39 as (4) It is easy to determine P c/ and P jc/ as the user preference by using explicit and implicit feedback provided by the user P Ejc/ D P a1 ; a2 ; ; ; an jc/ D s Y P jc/ (3) i c D arg max P c/ O c Y P jc/ (4) i 3) Other Approaches The usage of VSM and NB both poses a problem referred to as “the curse of dimension”: as the number of dimensions increases, the discrimination performance deteriorates Some of the approaches to avoid this problem are dimension reduction (feature selection) and application of weight or bias to the attributes Feature selection eliminates irrelevant or inappropriate attributes Principal component analysis (PCA) or probabiliistic latent semantic analysis (pLSA) can be used to this end The latter models a document as a combination of hidden variables which explain its topics In addition to dimension reduction, support vector machine (SVM) is an effective and robust tool to classify data into two classes The application of weight or bias to the attributes based on individual user’s viewpoint has also been proposed [30] Typical Cases of Multimedia Content Recommendation System There are several matching combinations for content recommendation systems, as shown in Figure Typically, four combinations are often used in recommendation Fig Matching combinations for a content recommendation system 40 N Kamimaeda et al systems The first is “content-to-content matching,” referred to as “content-meta-based search.” The second is “context-to-content matching,” also referred to as “contextaware search.” The third is “user-preference-to-content matching,” also referred to as “user-preference-based search.” The last is “user-preference-to-user-preference matching,” which is another case of “user-preference-based search.” This chapter investigates three types of recommendation systems (shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11) Fig Content-meta-based search Fig 10 Context-aware search Fig 11 User-preference-based search Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 41 1) Content-meta-based Search In content-meta-based search, users can acquire relevant content by querying for keywords or features The content data are initially indexed based on keywords or features by employing a content profiling process Query by example is a widely used implementation of the content-meta-based search; it is known as the “more like this” function 2) Context-aware Search Context-aware search provides relevant content based on “time,” “location,” “surrounding circumstances,” and “personal mood and activity,” which are monitored using sensing devices Context metadata should comprise prior indexed keywords, tags, or features obtained from the sensing devices Furthermore, this data should also be related to the content metadata in terms of queries such as “which kind of songs are relevant to this context,” “when is the last train arriving at this station,” and so on Some of these types of metadata should be automatically tagged based on the user log data rather than by manual tagging by the service provider 3) User-preference-based Search User-preference-based search is sometimes narrowly defined as a recommendation system It is also known as CBF or CF systems [2] The former employs similarity matching between the user preference and content profile The latter seeks similar users by conducting user-preference-to-user-preference matching and predicts the user’s taste based on the behaviors of similar users The CF-based content recommendation system of Amazon [31] has achieved some commercial success Recently, a hybrid solution comprising both CBF and CF was used in commercial TV recommendation systems [13] Cross-category Recommendation Key Points of a Cross-category Recommendation In order to realize the cross-category recommendation using basic CBF technologies, two key points are needed: to prepare common metadata among categories and to generate user preferences separately with respect to each category One is the category common metadata To calculate the content similarity among different categories, this element is necessary The other is separate user preference generation for each category Normally, metadata that can be used is different for each category Moreover, user preference about each metadata such as keyword 42 N Kamimaeda et al is likely to be different for each category For example, the user may like “World Heritage” in the TV category but the user may not like this in the music category Therefore, it is very important to accurately understand the user preference In this regard, however, it is necessary to appropriately merge the respective user preferences when the cross-category recommendation list is calculated Category Common Metadata A variety of metadata can be used for each category depending on the category For example, in the movie and music categories, we can use the metadata extracted from the content signal However, in the book category, it is impossible to use such kind of metadata Moreover, even if the same metadata can be used for multiple categories, it is difficult to use this metadata with different master tables Therefore, it is necessary to prepare the same metadata with the same master table as those among the categories for which cross-category recommendation needs to be realized In this article, this kind of metadata is called the common metadata Examples of common metadata are as follows: Specific metadata whose master table is the same among different categories e.g., genre, person, keyword, etc Abstract metadata that not depend on the category e.g., mood, impression, user’s personality or lifestyle, etc After preparing these common metadata, we can realize cross-category recommendation Cross-category recommendation can be described as that shown in Figure 12 There are three layers The first layer is “personalization engine.” This is an engine used to calculate the recommendation list The second layer is “common metadata/preference.” When the recommendation engine calculates the cross-category recommendation list among all the categories, the data from this layer is used For example, when the engine searches books using content metadata in the TV category as content-meta search or using the user preference for TV as a user-preference- Fig 12 Cross-category Recommendation Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 43 based search, data from this layer is used “Specific metadata/preference” is the last When the engine calculates the recommendation list for a specific category, the data from this layer is used For example, when the engine searches movies using the content metadata in the movie category as the content-meta search or using the user preference for movie as the user-preference-based search, data from this layer is used Separate User Preference Generation for Each Category Useful metadata and user preference are likely to be different for each category The entire metadata cannot always be treated as common metadata In addition, a user who likes the keywords such as “World Heritage” and “Travel” in the TV category may not like them in the book category Therefore, it is better to treat the user preference by each category In other words, the user preference for each category should be generated from logs for contents in the same category However by applying this, it is necessary to merge the respective user preference appropriately when the engine calculates the cross-category recommendation list as a user-preference-based search The user preference can be merged using several methods A simple mergence method for user preference is described below UPmerge D avg.˛UP1 C ˇUP2 / (5) In this equation, UP represents one user preference vector for a certain category ’ and “ are arbitrary variables By using this equation, three examples can be described below (a) Search books using the user preference for TV and for book as the userpreference-based search UPmerge D avg.˛UPT V C ˇUPBook / (b) Search TV content using the user preference for music and for TV as the userpreference-based search UPmerge D avg.˛UPM usic C ˇUPT V / (c) Search music content using the user preference for TV and for music as the user-preference-based search UPmerge D avg.˛UPT V C ˇUPM usic / Embodiment of Recommendation Engine: Voyager Engine (VE) In this section, Voyager EngineTM [13] [32] is selected as an example of embodiment of the recommendation engine 44 N Kamimaeda et al Fig 13 VE: Hybrid Personalization Engine Overview VE is Sony’s original personalization engine VE can be used for various kinds of applications and is particularly used nowadays to realize recommendation functions VE is a hybrid personalization engine having three types of filtering: CF, CBF, and rule-based filtering Figure 13 depicts a hybrid engine VE has been implemented to realize not only multimedia content recommendation in a specific category but also for cross-category recommendation VE adopts a VSM and handles all of the models such as user preference, content profile, and user context with a common vector format Therefore, it is easy to cross-matching among all of the models Consequently, VE can easily realize content-meta-based search, context-aware search, and user-preference-based search Moreover, VE has a unique function to show and edit the user preference itself By using this function, users can see their own user preference and change the user preference to adjust the recommendation result Explanation of Component A system overview of VE is shown in Figure 14 VE has four components: recommendation engine (RE), learning engine (LE), mining engine (ME), and database (DB) The first is the RE RE has matching functions such as content-meta-based search, context-aware search, or user-preference-based search By using these functions, RE generates a recommendation list The second is ME ME has functions involving content profiling By using these functions, ME analyzes the content itself to generate the content metadata and generates content profiles from this content metadata The third is LE LE has functions involving context learning and user preference learning By using these functions, LE generates the user preference based on logs The last is DB User preferences, content metadata, and user logs are stored into this DB Cross-category Recommendation for Multimedia Content 45 Fig 14 System Overview of VE Currently, VE has both client and server libraries Practical client and server applications using VE are shown in the chapter titled “Example of Practical Applications.” Key Methods to Realize Cross-category Recommendation In this section, we elaborate upon three methods: automatic metadata expansion (AME), indirect collaborative filtering (ICF), and referred collaborative filtering (RCF) As mentioned earlier, common metadata including specific or abstract metadata from various viewpoints gives us some hints to predict common user’s preference in cross category Moreover, community-based approaches like CF are also important for this purpose, although these approaches have shortcomings for completely new items For the former one AME is proposed AME is a method to expand content metadata having rich and abstract information Regarding the latter one, VE employs ICF and RCF which cover shortcomings of CF ICF is the method to extract user preference based on other users’ preferences RCF is a method to find relational content based on not only users’ logs but also content similarities These three methods are described in the following section AME AME is a method to create new content metadata from original content metadata in cooperation with the associated concept dictionary (ACD) AME also automatically enhances the ACD if prior associated concept data is given Figure 15 shows the conceptual diagram of the AME First the content metadata is only the original metadata, which is given by a content provider The original metadata has some information such as cast, genre, ... Naoki.Kamimaeda@jp.sony.com; tsunoda@sue.sony.co.jp; samba@sue.sony.co.jp B Furht (ed.), Handbook of Multimedia for Digital Entertainment and Arts, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-89024-1 2, c Springer Science+Business... movie To calculate the similarity of two movies, we use the cosine similarity measure computed in formula and bi are the values of the i -th elements of vectors E a and b E P bi a b E E i E D cos.E... four or five) a set U of movies, asks for recommendations, a set C of candidate movies for recommendation is created as the union of the k-most similar movies for each movie j U , excluding movies