master_thesis.pdf
0 likes23 views
This thesis proposes designing and developing a personalized country recommender system. It outlines introducing the problem motivation and research questions. The document then reviews the state of the art on recommender systems including definitions, data sources, approaches (collaborative filtering, content-based filtering, hybrid filtering), and evaluation metrics. It describes the methodology which includes collecting a training dataset, implementing recommender algorithms (SVD, KNN, co-clustering), and system design. The results and evaluation of the system are then presented.
master_thesis.pdf
- 1. MOHAMED V UNIVERSITY– RABAT NATIONALADVANCED SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS Master Thesis Data science and Big Data Designing and Developing a Personalized Country Recommender System Presented By : EL MAJJODI Ayoub Octobre, 2019 Supervised By: Pr. Lamia BENHIBA, ENSIAS Pr. Nabil EL IONI, UNIBZ Pr. Mehdi ELAHI, UNIBZ
- 2. 2 Outline I. Introduction II. State of the Art III. Methodology III. Results V. Conclusion
- 3. State of the Art 3 3 Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Motivation Research questions Proposed Solution Quality of Life, UK Education quality, USA Health Care, UEA
- 4. State of the Art 4 4 Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Motivation Research questions Proposed Solution Ranking lists: best place to live
- 5. State of the Art 5 Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Motivation Research questions Proposed Solution Recommender Systems found success in many domains such as : E-commerce Education Entertainment Travel
- 6. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Motivation Research question Proposed Solution Personalized System With a Recommendation of Countries 6
- 7. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Motivation Research questions Project Proposal In order to achieve our objective, we formulated a number of research questions : 1- Which recommender algorithms can be adopted -based on the preferences of users in order to generate personalized country ranking ? 2- What are the most important features that users consider when deciding to move to another country ? 3- Do recommender algorithm preferences depend on personality types ? 4- Will the system for generating personalized country ranking be usable according to the user’s assessment ? 7
- 8. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches Evaluation Recommender systems : {people provide recommendations as inputs, which the system then aggregates and directs to appropriate recipients} (Resnick, 1997) {Any system that produces individualized recommendations as output or has the effect of guiding the user in a personalized way to interesting or useful objects in a large space of possible options} (Burkee 2002) 8
- 9. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches Evaluation Recommender systems formulation : ● U the set of all the users ● I the set of all the possible items ● Let f be the utility function that measures the suitability of item i to the users u needs ● A system of recommendation tries to choose item i’ in I that maximize the user’s utility function : 9
- 10. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches Evaluation The data used by Recommender systems can be categorized into : Items : objects that are recommended (goods, movies,books, courses ..). Transactions : recorded interactions between the user and the system. Users : users of the recommender system 10
- 11. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches Evaluation Recommender system approaches : Collaborative Filtering Content Based Filtering Hybrid Filtering 11
- 12. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: collaborative filtering Evaluation Collaborative Filtering : generate ratings for new user based on people with similar interest. Example :collaborative filtering 12
- 13. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Content Based filtering Evaluation Content Based filtering : recommends an item to user based on, the description of item characteristic and user profile in term of item characteristics. Example: Content based filtering 13
- 14. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Hybrid Filtering Evaluation combine two or more recommendation techniques, mostly collaborative and content based filtering to make recommendations. Hybrid filtering : Example: Hybrid filtering 14
- 15. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Evaluation Statistical Measures Statistical measures : Mean Absolute Error (MAE) : measures the average absolute deviation between a predicted rating and the user’s true ratings. { { { Ratings set predicted rating of item i to user u. true rating 15
- 16. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Evaluation Statistical Measures Statistical measures : Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) : between the predicted values and actual rating. 16
- 17. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Evaluation Usefulness Usefulness : ★ Novelty ★ Diversity ★ Understand ME ★ Satisfaction ★ Accuracy 17
- 18. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Evaluation Usefulness Personality : { Individual’s characteristic pattern of thinking, feeling, and psychological mechanism, influences how people make their decision. }(The personality puzzle 1997) 18
- 19. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Definition Human Behaviour and Personality Knowledge Source Approaches: Evaluation Usefulness Big-5 personality traits : ➢ Openness : reflects a person’s tendency to intellectual curiosity, creativity and preference for novelty and variety of experience. ➢ Conscientiousness : reflects a person’s tendency to show self-discipline and aim for personal achievements, and to have an organized and dependable behavior. ➢ Neuroticism: reflects a person’s tendency to experience unpleasant emotions. ➢ Extraversion: reflects a person’s tendency to show sociability, talkativeness and assertiveness traits. ➢ Agreeableness : reflects a person’s tendency to be kind, concerned, truthful and cooper- ative towards others. 19
- 20. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design Form used in training dataset collection 20
- 21. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design Training dataset: - 136 users - 25 country - 3400 rows Ratings Matrix 21
- 22. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms cross-validation Implementation & Design Adopted Algorithms : Cross validation results SVD KNN-B Co-clustering 22
- 23. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms SVD Implementation & Design Adopted Algorithms : ➢ SingularValue Decomposition (SVD): factorize the original ratings matrix into two matrices using a prediction function. R = Ratings matrix, m users, n item P=User matrix , m user, f features Q= Item matrix, n item, f A rating r(ui) can be estimated by dot product of user vector p(u) and item vector q(i). 23
- 24. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms KNN-B Implementation & Design Adopted Algorithms : ➢ K-Nearest Neighbor Baseline (KNN-B): Finding like-minded users or similar items for a given users, based on : ➔ A similarity measures ➔ A function that fetch the neighborhood using the similarity measures ➔ A rating prediction function based on the neighbor ratings. 24
- 25. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Co-clustering Implementation & Design Adopted Algorithms : ➢ Co-clustering: grouping both similar user and similar items into, categories synchronously. Example: Co-clustering 25
- 26. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 26 System Architecture
- 27. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 27 User flow : ● Registration step ● Username, email, password ● Personality survey: Five factor model ● Openness, conscientiousness , extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism
- 28. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 28 User flow : ● Select Features (at least 3 out of 12) 1. Education quality 2. Political insecurity 3. Social conflict 4. Work opportunities 5. Health care 6. Income difference 7. Wars and dictatorship 8. Family member abroad 9. Cultural and linguistic similarities 10. Working atmosphere 11. Shorter distance 12. Crime rate
- 29. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 29 User flow : ● Rate countries (at least 5 ) using 5-star rating scale
- 30. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 30 User flow : ● Result (3 lists) ● Evaluation survey : 5 metrics , accuracy, Diversity, understand Me, satisfaction, Novelty. ● List 1 : SVD ● List 2 : KNN-B ● List 3 : Co-clustering
- 31. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 31 User flow : ● Usability Survey (System Usability Scale, SUS : score 10-item questionnaire based on 5-point Likret scale)
- 32. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 32 ➢ Online evaluation with real user ➢ 281 new user attempted the experiment, 109 completed all the steps ➢ Data collected was analysed in order to find possible patterns Registration 281 (100%) Personality 241 (85%) Features 226 (80%) Ratings 193 (69%) Evaluate 189 (67%) Usability 109 (38%)
- 33. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Data description Experiment Recommender Algorithms Implementation & Design 33 Under 18 Age: 12 (5%) 18-24 100 (42%) 25-35 93 (39%) 35-45 23 (9%) 45-55 10 (4%) Over 55 2 (1%) Females Origin Country: 65 (27%) Males 170 (71%) 25-35 5 (25%) Gender: ➢ USA (20%) ➢ Morocco (11%) ➢ Egypte (5%) + Various other countries (64%)
- 34. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison System Usability Personality & Algorithm Preferences 34 Feature Preferences Metric Question Co-clustering KNN-B SVD Accuracy 1. Which list has more selections that you find appealing ? 33% 29% 38% Accuracy 2. Which list has more obviously bad suggestions for you ? 59% 31% 10% Diversity 3. Which list has more countries that are similar to each other ? 26% 26% 48% Diversity 4. Which list has a more varied selection of countries ? 32% 40% 18% Diversity 5. Which list has countries that match a wider variety of preferences ? 24% 74% 29%
- 35. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 35 Feature Preferences Metric Question Co-clustering KNN-B SVD Understand ME 6. Which list better reflects your preferences in countries ? 18% 26% 56% Understand ME 7. Which list seems more personalized to your countries ratings ? 21% 24% 55% Understand ME 8. Which list represents more mainstream ratings instead of your own ? 15% 24% 61% Satisfaction 9. Which list would better help you find countries to consider ? 14% 40% 46% Satisfaction 10. Which list would you be more likely to recommend to your friends ? 19% 19% 62% System Usability
- 36. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 36 Feature Preferences Metric Question Co-clustering KNN-B SVD Novelty 11. Which list has more countries you did not expect ? 55% 33% 12% Novelty 12. Which list has more countries that are familiar to you ? 23% 29% 48% Novelty 13. Which list has more pleasantly surprising countries ? 25% 49% 26% Novelty 14. Which list provides fewer new suggestions ? 29% 17% 54% System Usability
- 37. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 37 Feature Preferences RQ1: Which recommender algorithms can be adopted -based on the preferences of users in order to generate personalized country ranking ? SVD : better in terms of accuracy, Understand Me, Satisfaction SVD : many mainstream suggestions KNN-B : better in terms of Diversity and Novelty Co-clustering :Deemed underperforming by majority of users across most of the categories of metrics System Usability
- 38. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences Feature Preferences Overall (226) Work Opportunities 161 (72%) Education Quality 105 (42%) Working Atmosphere 100 (44%) Health Care 97 (43%) Income Difference 84 (37%) Political Insecurity 59 (26%) Crime Rate 58 (26%) Social Conflict 49 (22%) Cultural & Linguistic Similarities 41 (21%) Wars & Dictatorship 37 (16%) Family Member Abroad 20 (8%) Shorter Distance 15 (6%) Males (170) Work Opportunities 108(70%) Education Quality 81(48%) Health Care 72 (42%) Females (65) Work Opportunities 40 (61%) Working Atmosphere 31 (48%) Health Care 31 (48%) 38 System Usability
- 39. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 39 Feature Preferences RQ2: What are the most important features that users consider when deciding to move to another country ? Top 4 features : ➢ Work Opportunities ➢ Education Quality ➢ Working Atmosphere ➢ Health Care System Usability
- 40. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 40 Feature Preferences System Usability Accuracy Diversity Understand ME Satisfaction Novelty Openness SVD Co-clustering SVD SVD KNN-B Conscientiousness SVD Co-clustering SVD SVD KNN-B Extraversion SVD KNN-B SVD SVD KNN-B Agreeableness SVD KNN-B SVD SVD KNN-B Neuroticism SVD Co-clustering SVD SVD KNN-B Personality and Algorithm preferences
- 41. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 41 Feature Preferences RQ3: Do recommender algorithm preferences depend on personality types ? ➢ People with different types of personality may tend to choose results generated by different types of algorithms. System Usability
- 42. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 42 Feature Preferences System Usability Sus Score Interpretion : Score Grade Rating > 80 A Excellent 68 - 80 B Good 68 C OKay 51-68 D Poor < 51 F Awful Final score : 60.82 Lowest : 22.5 Highest : 100
- 43. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Algorithm Comparison Personality & algorithm preferences 43 Feature Preferences RQ4: Will the system for generating personalized country ranking be usable according to the user’s assessment ? ➢ Scored lower than well accepted benchmark ➢ The system didn’t pass the usability test System Usability
- 44. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion 44 Conclusion ➔ We survyed people to gather explicit rating about some countries. ➔ Proposed System evaluated according to real users assessment . ➔ A recomender system of countries was designed, deployed. ➔ We cross validate seviral collaborative filtering algorithms. Future works
- 45. State of the Art Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion 45 ➔ Investigate whether recommender system based on deep learning would improve quality of recommendation in this domain. ➔ Investigate the usefulness of making recommendations related to immigration factors. ➔ Incorporate the personality information in the prediction model. ➔ Extend the experement to gather more data. Conclusion Future works
- 46. THANK YOU ! 46
- 47. MOHAMED V UNIVERSITY– RABAT NATIONALADVANCED SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS Master Thesis Data science and Big Data Designing and Developing a Personalized Country Recommender System Presented By : EL MAJJODI Ayoub Octobre, 2019 Supervised By: Pr. Lamia BENHIBA, ENSIAS Pr. Nabil EL IONI, UNIBZ Pr. Mehdi ELAHI, UNIBZ