Benefits of Using Symmetric Loss in Recommender Systems

  • Gaurav SinghEmail author
  • Sandra Mitrović
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10772)


The majority of online users do not engage actively with what they are offered: they mostly use few items, give feedback on even fewer. Additionally, in many cases, the only feedback available about the item is positive feedback. These issues are well-known in the area of personalized recommendation and there have been many attempts to develop recommendation algorithms based on data consisting of only positive feedback. Most such state-of-the-art recommendation methods use convex loss functions, and either interpret non-interactivity with an item as negative feedback or ignore such entries altogether, none of which in principal reflects the reality. In this work, we provide reasons to motivate the usage of a non-convex loss in implicit feedback scenario to deal with unlabelled data, and devise an algorithm to minimize the proposed loss in collaborative setting. We analyse the effects of the proposed loss both qualitatively and quantitatively on a benchmark public dataset.



GS would like to acknowledge support from the FRE Program at Yahoo!


  1. 1.
    Baeza-Yates, R., Ribeiro-Neto, B., et al.: Modern Information Retrieval, vol. 463. ACM press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouchard, G., Yin, D., Guo, S.: Convex collective matrix factorization. In: AISTATS, vol. 31, pp. 144–152 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cai, J.-F., Candès, E.J., Shen, Z.: A singular value thresholding algorithm for matrix completion. SIAM J. Optim. 20(4), 1956–1982 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeCoste, D.: Collaborative prediction using ensembles of maximum margin matrix factorizations. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 249–256. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    du Plessis, M.C., Niu, G., Sugiyama, M.: Analysis of learning from positive and unlabeled data. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 703–711 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guan, N., Tao, D., Luo, Z., Yuan, B.: Online nonnegative matrix factorization with robust stochastic approximation. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 23(7), 1087–1099 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harper, F.M., Konstan, J.A.: The movielens datasets: history and context. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 5(4), 19:1–19:19 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu, Y., Koren, Y., Volinsky, C.: Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets. In: 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 263–272. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, D.D., Seung, H.S.: Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 556–562 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lefevre, A., Bach, F., Févotte, C.: Online algorithms for nonnegative matrix factorization with the Itakura-Saito divergence. In: 2011 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA), pp. 313–316. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim, D., McAuley, J., Lanckriet, G.: Top-n recommendation with missing implicit feedback. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 309–312. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan, R., Zhou, Y., Cao, B., Liu, N.N., Lukose, R., Scholz, M., Yang, Q.: One-class collaborative filtering. In: 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 502–511. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rendle, S., Freudenthaler, C., Gantner, Z., Schmidt-Thieme, L.: BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 452–461. AUAI Press (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schnabel, T., Swaminathan, A., Singh, A., Chandak, N., Joachims, T.: Recommendations as treatments: debiasing learning and evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05352 (2016)
  15. 15.
    Singh, A.P., Gordon, G.J.: Relational learning via collective matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2008, pp. 650–658. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srebro, N., Rennie, J., Jaakkola, T.S.: Maximum-margin matrix factorization. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1329–1336 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu, W., Liu, X., Gong, Y.: Document clustering based on non-negative matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 267–273. ACM (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCLLondonUK
  2. 2.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations