Inferring Networks of Substitutable and Complementary Products

In a modern recommender system, it is important to understand how products relate to each other. For example, while a user is looking for mobile phones, it might make sense to recommend other phones, but once they buy a phone, we might instead want to recommend batteries, cases, or chargers. These two types of recommendations are referred to as substitutes and complements: substitutes are products that can be purchased instead of each other, while complements are products that can be purchased in addition to each other. Here we develop a method to infer networks of substitutable and complementary products. We formulate this as a supervised link prediction task, where we learn the semantics of substitutes and complements from data associated with products. The primary source of data we use is the text of product reviews, though our method also makes use of features such as ratings, specifications, prices, and brands. Methodologically, we build topic models that are trained to automatically discover topics from text that are successful at predicting and explaining such relationships. Experimentally, we evaluate our system on the Amazon product catalog, a large dataset consisting of 9 million products, 237 million links, and 144 million reviews.Comment: 12 pages, 6 figure

Correction: A correlated topic model of Science

Correction to Annals of Applied Statistics 1 (2007) 17--35 [doi:10.1214/07-AOAS114]Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/07-AOAS136 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Analysis of Computer Science Communities Based on DBLP

It is popular nowadays to bring techniques from bibliometrics and scientometrics into the world of digital libraries to analyze the collaboration patterns and explore mechanisms which underlie community development. In this paper we use the DBLP data to investigate the author's scientific career and provide an in-depth exploration of some of the computer science communities. We compare them in terms of productivity, population stability and collaboration trends.Besides we use these features to compare the sets of topranked conferences with their lower ranked counterparts.Comment: 9 pages, 7 figures, 6 table