895 research outputs found

    Enhancing VAEs for Collaborative Filtering: Flexible Priors & Gating Mechanisms

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(์„์‚ฌ)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› :์œตํ•ฉ๊ณผํ•™๊ธฐ์ˆ ๋Œ€ํ•™์› ์œตํ•ฉ๊ณผํ•™๋ถ€(๋””์ง€ํ„ธ์ •๋ณด์œตํ•ฉ์ „๊ณต),2019. 8. ์„œ๋ด‰์›.Since Matrix Factorization based linear models have been dominant in the Collaborative Filtering context for a long time in the past, Neural Network based CF Models for recommendation have started to gain attention recently. One branch of research is based on using deep generative models to model user preferences and Variational Autoencoders where shown to give state-of-the-art results. However, there are some potentially problematic characteristics of the current Variational Autoencoder for CF. The first is the too simplistic prior VAEs incorporate for learning the latent representations of user preference, which may be restricting the model from learning more expressive and richer latent variables that could boost recommendation performance. The other is the models inability to learn deeper representations with more than one hidden layer. Our goal is to incorporate appropriate techniques in order to mitigate the aforementioned problems of Variational Autoencoder CF and further improve the recommendation performance of VAE based Collaborative Fil-tering. We bring the VampPrior, which successfully made improvements for image generation to tackle the restrictive prior problem. We also adopt Gat-ed Linear Units (GLUs) which were used in stacked convolutions for lan-guage modeling to control information flow in the easily deepening auto-encoder framework. We show that such simple priors (in original VAEs) may be too restric-tive to fully model user preferences and setting a more flexible prior gives significant gains. We also show that VAMP priors coupled with gating mechanisms outperform SOTA results including the Variational Autoencoder for Collaborative Filtering by meaningful margins on 4 benchmark datasets (MovieLens, Netflix, Pinterest, Melon).์ตœ๊ทผ ๋‰ด๋Ÿด๋„ท ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ํ˜‘์—…ํ•„ํ„ฐ๋ง ์ถ”์ฒœ์•Œ๊ณ ๋ฆฌ์ฆ˜์ด ์ฃผ๋ชฉ์„ ๋ฐ›๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๊ทธ ์ค‘ ํ•œ ๊ฐˆ๋ž˜์˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊นŠ์€ ์ƒ์„ฑ๋ชจํ˜• (Deep Generative Model)์„ ์ด์šฉํ•ด ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž๋“ค์˜ ์„ ํ˜ธ๋ฅผ ๋ชจ๋ธ๋งํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์ด๋‹ค. ์ด์ค‘ Variational Autoencoder๋ฅผ (VAE) ์ด์šฉํ•œ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์ด ์ตœ๊ทผ state-of-the-art (SOTA) ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ฃผ์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜ VAE๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ํ˜‘์—…ํ•„ํ„ฐ๋ง ์•Œ๊ณ ๋ฆฌ์ฆ˜์€ ํ˜„์žฌ ๋ช‡ ๊ฐ€์ง€์˜ ์ž ์žฌ์ ์ธ ๋ฌธ์ œ์ ๋“ค์„ ์ง€๋‹ˆ๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ฒซ ๋ฒˆ์งธ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž ์„ ํ˜ธ๋ฅผ ์••์ถ•ํ•˜๋Š” ์ž ์žฌ๋ณ€์ˆ˜๋ฅผ ํ•™์Šตํ•˜๋Š” ๊ณผ์ •์—์„œ ๋งค์šฐ ๋‹จ์ˆœํ•œ ์‚ฌ์ „๋ถ„ํฌ๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•œ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ๋˜ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ๋ฌธ์ œ์ ์€ ๋ชจ๋ธ์ด ํ˜„์žฌ ์—ฌ๋Ÿฌ ๋‹จ์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ๊นŠ์€ ์ธ์ฝ”๋”์™€ ๋””์ฝ”๋”๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์ง€ ๋ชปํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์ตœ์‹ ๊ธฐ์ˆ ๋“ค์„ ํ™œ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์•ž์„  ๋ฌธ์ œ์ ๋“ค์„ ํ•ด๊ฒฐํ•˜๊ณ  VAE๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ํ˜‘์—…ํ•„ํ„ฐ๋ง ์•Œ๊ณ ๋ฆฌ์ฆ˜์˜ ์ถ”์ฒœ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ๋”์šฑ ๋†’์ด๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ๋ชฉํ‘œ์ด๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ํ˜‘์—…ํ•„ํ„ฐ๋ง ๋ฌธ์ œ์— ๋” ๋ณต์žกํ•œ ์‚ฌ์ „๋ถ„ํฌ (Flexible Prior)๋ฅผ ์ ์šฉํ•œ ์ฒซ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋กœ์„œ, ๊ธฐ์กด์˜ ๋‹จ์ˆœํ•œ ์‚ฌ์ „๋ถ„ํฌ๊ฐ€ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ ํ‘œํ˜„๋ ฅ์„ ์ œํ•œํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ ๋” ๋ณต์žกํ•œ ์‚ฌ์ „๋ถ„ํฌ๋ฅผ ์ •์˜ํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ๋”์šฑ ๋†’์ผ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Œ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ด๋ฏธ์ง€ ์ƒ์„ฑ ๋ฌธ์ œ์—์„œ ์ข‹์€ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ๋ณด์ธ VampPrior๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•ด ์‹คํ—˜์„ ์ง„ํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ VampPrior๋ฅผ Gating Mechanisim๊ณผ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€์„ ๋•Œ ๊ธฐ์กด SOTA๋ฅผ ๋„˜์–ด์„œ๋Š” ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ๋ณด์ž„์„ ์ถ”์ฒœ์•Œ๊ณ ๋ฆฌ์ฆ˜์—์„œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” ๋Œ€ํ‘œ์ ์ธ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ์…‹๋“ค์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Research Goal 3 1.3 Enhancing VAEs for Collaborative Filtering 3 1.4 Experiments 5 1.5 Contributions 5 2 RELATED WORK 7 2.1 Collaborative Filtering 7 2.1.1 Traditional methods & Matrix-Factorization based CF 8 2.1.2 Autoencoders for CF 12 2.2 Deep Generative Models (VAE) 17 2.2.1 Variational Bayes 18 2.2.2 Variational Autoencoder 18 2.3 Variational Autoencoder for Collaborative Filtering 20 2.3.1 VAE for CF 21 2.4 Recent research in Computer Vision & Deep Learning 24 2.4.1 VampPrior 24 2.4.2 Gated CNN 25 3 METHOD 28 3.1 Flexible Prior 29 3.1.1 Motivation 29 3.1.2 VampPrior 30 3.1.3 Hierarchical Stochastic Units 31 3.2 Gating Mechanism 32 3.2.1 Motivation 32 3.2.2 Gated Linear Units 34 4 EXPERIMENT 35 4.1 Setup 35 4.1.1 Baseline Models 35 4.1.2 Proposed Models 37 4.1.3 Strong Generalization 37 4.1.4 Evaluation Metrics 38 4.2 Datasets 38 4.3 Configurations 39 4.4 Results 40 4.4.1 Model Performance 40 4.4.5 Further Analysis on the Effect of Gating 44 5 CONCLUSION 45 Bibliography 47 ๊ตญ๋ฌธ์ดˆ๋ก 51Maste

    PocketCare: Tracking the Flu with Mobile Phones using Partial Observations of Proximity and Symptoms

    Full text link
    Mobile phones provide a powerful sensing platform that researchers may adopt to understand proximity interactions among people and the diffusion, through these interactions, of diseases, behaviors, and opinions. However, it remains a challenge to track the proximity-based interactions of a whole community and then model the social diffusion of diseases and behaviors starting from the observations of a small fraction of the volunteer population. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that tries to connect together these sparse observations using a model of how individuals interact with each other and how social interactions happen in terms of a sequence of proximity interactions. We apply our approach to track the spreading of flu in the spatial-proximity network of a 3000-people university campus by mobilizing 300 volunteers from this population to monitor nearby mobile phones through Bluetooth scanning and to daily report flu symptoms about and around them. Our aim is to predict the likelihood for an individual to get flu based on how often her/his daily routine intersects with those of the volunteers. Thus, we use the daily routines of the volunteers to build a model of the volunteers as well as of the non-volunteers. Our results show that we can predict flu infection two weeks ahead of time with an average precision from 0.24 to 0.35 depending on the amount of information. This precision is six to nine times higher than with a random guess model. At the population level, we can predict infectious population in a two-week window with an r-squared value of 0.95 (a random-guess model obtains an r-squared value of 0.2). These results point to an innovative approach for tracking individuals who have interacted with people showing symptoms, allowing us to warn those in danger of infection and to inform health researchers about the progression of contact-induced diseases
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore