Cheap and Cheerful: Trading Speed and Quality for Scalable Social-Recommenders

  • Anne-Marie KermarrecEmail author
  • François Taïani
  • Juan M. Tirado
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9038)


Recommending appropriate content and users is a critical feature of on-line social networks. Computing accurate recommendations on very large datasets can however be particularly costly in terms of resources, even on modern parallel and distributed infrastructures. As a result, modern recommenders must generally trade-off quality and cost to reach a practical solution. This trade-off has however so far been largely left unexplored by the research community, making it difficult for practitioners to reach informed design decisions. In this paper, we investigate to which extent the additional computing costs of advanced recommendation techniques based on supervised classifiers can be balanced by the gains they bring in terms of quality. In particular, we compare these recommenders against their unsupervised counterparts, which offer light-weight and highly scalable alternatives. We propose a thorough evaluation comparing 11 classifiers against 7 lightweight recommenders on a real Twitter dataset. Additionally, we explore data grouping as a method to reduce computational costs in a distributed setting while improving recommendation quality. We demonstrate how classifiers trained using data grouping can reduce their computing time by 6 while improving recommendations up to 22% when compared with lightweight solutions.


Score Function Social Distance Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline Link Prediction Social Graph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Amatriain, X., Basilico, J.: Netflix recommendations: Beyond the 5 stars (April 6, 2012), (accessed September 20, 2013)
  2. 2.
    Backstrom, L., Leskovec, J.: Supervised random walks: predicting and recommending links in social networks. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2011, pp. 635–644 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barabasi, A.L., De, J., Lettres, P., Al, L., Cimento, N., Jeong, H., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Neda, Z., Barabasi, A.L.: Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters 61(61), 567–572 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bobadilla, J., Ortega, F., Hernando, A., Gutiérrez, A.: Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-Based Systems 46(0), 109–132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutet, A., Frey, D., Guerraoui, R., Jégou, A., Kermarrec, A.-M.: WhatsUp Decentralized Instant News Recommender. In: IPDPS 2013 (May 2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1), 5–32 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brzozowski, M.J., Romero, D.M.: Who should i follow? recommending people in directed social networks. In: ICWSM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Facebook Inc. Key facts (2013), (accessed October 2, 2013)
  9. 9.
    Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E.: A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 55(1), 119–139 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman, J.H.: Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines. The Annals of Statistics 19(1), 1–67 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhn, M., Contributions from Jed Wing, Weston, S., Williams, A., Keefer, C., Engelhardt, A., Cooper, T.: caret: Classification and Regression Training. R package version 5.16-24 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gonzalez, J.E., Low, Y., Gu, H., Bickson, D., Guestrin, C.: Powergraph: Distributed graph-parallel computation on natural graphs. In: Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2012, pp. 17–30. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta, P., Goel, A., Lin, J., Sharma, A., Wang, D., Zadeh, R.: Wtf: the who to follow service at twitter. In: WWW, pp. 505–514 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hasan, M., Zaki, M.: A survey of link prediction in social networks. In: Aggarwal, C.C. (ed.) Social Network Data Analytics, pp. 243–275. Springer, US (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotsiantis, S.B.: Supervised machine learning: A review of classification techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Emerging Artificial Intelligence Applications in Computer Engineering: Real Word AI Systems with Applications in eHealth, HCI, Information Retrieval and Pervasive Technologies, pp. 3–24. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liben-Nowell, D., Kleinberg, J.: The link prediction problem for social networks. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2003, pp. 556–559. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lichtenwalter, R.N., Lussier, J.T., Chawla, N.V.: New perspectives and methods in link prediction. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2010, pp. 243–252. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rowe, M., Stankovic, M., Alani, H.: Who will follow whom? exploiting semantics for link prediction in attention-information networks. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7649, pp. 476–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scellato, S., Noulas, A., Mascolo, C.: Exploiting place features in link prediction on location-based social networks. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2011, pp. 1046–1054. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schein, A.I., Popescul, A., Ungar, L.H., Pennock, D.M.: Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2002, pp. 253–260. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schifanella, R., Barrat, A., Cattuto, C., Markines, B., Menczer, F.: Folks in folksonomies: social link prediction from shared metadata. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2010, pp. 271–280 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tirado, J.M., Higuero, D., Isaila, F., Carretero, J., Iamnitchi, A.: Affinity p2p: A self-organizing content-based locality-aware collaborative peer-to-peer network. Comput. Netw. 54(12), 2056–2070 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valverde-Rebaza, J., de Andrade Lopes, A.: Structural link prediction using community information on twitter. In: 2012 Fourth International Conference on Computational Aspects of Social Networks (CASoN), pp. 132–137 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, C., Satuluri, V., Parthasarathy, S.: Local probabilistic models for link prediction. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2007, pp. 322–331. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yin, D., Hong, L., Davison, B.D.: Structural link analysis and prediction in microblogs. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2011, pp. 1163–1168. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Marie Kermarrec
    • 1
    Email author
  • François Taïani
    • 2
  • Juan M. Tirado
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA RennesRennesFrance
  2. 2.University of Rennes 1 - IRISA - ESIRRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations