IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND SCALABILITY OF
MODEL-BASED MUSIC RECOMMENDER SYSTEMBASED ON INCREMENTAL TRAINING
Kazuyoshi Yoshii†∗
Masataka Goto‡
Kazunori Komatani†
Tetsuya Ogata†
Hiroshi G. Okuno††Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University ∗ JSPS Research Fellow (DC1)‡National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST){yoshii,komatani,ogata,okuno}@kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp
m.goto@aist.go.jp

ABSTRACT
We aimed at improving the efficiency and scalability ofa hybrid music recommender system based on a probabilistic generative model that integrates both collaborative
data (rating scores provided by users) and content-based
data (acoustic features of musical pieces). Although thehybrid system was proved to make accurate recommendations, it lacks efficiency and scalability. In other words,
the entire model needs to be re-trained from scratch whenever a new score, user, or piece is added. Furthermore, thesystem cannot deal with practical numbers of users andpieces on an enterprise scale. To improve efficiency, we
propose an incremental method that partially updates themodel at low computational cost. To enhance scalability,
we propose a method that first constructs a small “core”
model over fewer virtual representatives created from realusers and pieces, and then adds the real users and pieces tothe core model by using the incremental method. The experimental results revealed that the proposed system was
not only efficient and scalable but also outperformed theoriginal system in terms of accuracy.
1 INTRODUCTION
Music recommender systems play important roles in current e-commerce to help users discover their favorites inhuge databases [1]. For example, many e-commerce sites(e.g., Last.fm and Amazon.com [2]) use collaborative filtering techniques to recommend musical pieces to the user
by examining how someone else has rated them. Althoughthese techniques have been considered to be effective, they
suffer from the famous “new item” problem. That is, nonrated pieces cannot be recommended. In addition, the variety of recommendations tends to be poor because mostusers mainly rate musical pieces by a small number of
popular artists. This indicates that there still remains muchroom for enhancing the Long-Tail effect [3].
To overcome these limitations, content-based filtering
techniques, which recommend musical pieces similar touser’s favorites in terms of musical content, are attracting attention of many researchers. However, a major approach based on automatic content analysis for musicalc 2007 Austrian Computer Society (OCG).


audio signals [4, 5] has not fully gained the popularity ofend users. In contrast, Pandora, which depends on manualcontent annotation for commercial titles, is a well-known
successful radio station on the Internet. This indicates that
we should take into account important factors, such as cultural backgrounds and popularity on the market, that contribute to making reasonable recommendations but cannot
be obtained from audio signals. However, this annotationbased approach lacks portability because it is not practicalto manually annotate all compositions by amateurs in social networking services (e.g., MySpace.com).
To make reasonable recommendations under any conditions, it is necessary to take a flexible hybrid approachthat can integrate various types of available data. This improves robustness against inappropriate data in real world(e.g., malicious rating scores, erroneous automatic annotations, and inconsistent manual annotations).
We therefore developed a hybrid recommender systemusing a probabilistic model that integrates both collaborative and content-based data in a theoretical way [6]. Although our system overcame the shortcomings of conventional techniques, critical problems in efficiency and scalability emerged when we tried to apply our system to ecommerce where several millions of users and pieces aremanaged. The system can neither promptly adapt recommendations to each user according to changes in his or
her rating scores nor incrementally register new users andpieces. This is because the model should always be trained
from scratch, where the time for training is proportional toboth numbers of users and pieces.
To improve efficiency, we propose an online methodthat updates only partial parameters of the model related
to changes in the observed data. This enables the system
to incrementally incorporate these changes into the model.
To improve scalability, we propose a method that builds asmall “core” model over fixed numbers of virtual representatives created from large numbers of real users andpieces. The core model is then updated while incrementally registering real users and pieces.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews our recommender system. Section 3 explains the
proposed methods. Section 4 reports on the experiments.
Section 5 summarizes the key findings of this study.

p(u )

2 HYBRID MUSIC RECOMMENDER SYSTEM
We will first define a recommendation task and then explain the original version of our recommender system [6].
2.1 Task Statement
The objective of music recommendation is to rank musical pieces that have not been rated by a target user. We
let U = {u|1, · · · , NU } be the indices of users and M ={m|1, · · · , NM } be those of pieces, where NU is the number of users and NM is that of pieces. We assumed that U
and M were registered in the system in advance.
Collaborative data are rating scores, which are also registered in the system. In this paper, we focus on scores on
a 0-to-4 scale as rating data. We let ru,m be a rating score
given to piece m by user u, where ru,m is an integer between 0 and 4 (4 being the best). By collecting all therating scores, rating matrix R is obtained byR= {ru,m |1 ≤ u ≤ NU , 1 ≤ m ≤ NM }.

(1)

When user u has not rated piece m, φ is substituted forru.m as a symbol, representing an “empty” score for convenience. Note that most scores in R are empty in actual
data because all users have rated a few pieces in M .
Content-based data are acoustic features automaticallyextracted from the polyphonic audio signals of all musicalpieces, M . We assumed that each piece would be represented as a single vector of musical features. Let T ={t|1, · · · , NT } be the indices of these features, where NT
is the total number (a dimension of the vector). Here, cm,tis defined as the t-th element value of piece m. By collecting all the feature vectors, content matrix C is obtained byC= {cm,t |1 ≤ m ≤ NM , 1 ≤ t ≤ NT }.

(2)

The method of extracting features we use is based on the
bag-of-timbres model [6]. Note that we can incorporate
mannual annotations into calculating maxtix C.
2.2 Recommendation Method
To integrate the collaborative and content-based data, weused a probabilistic generative model, called a three-way
aspect model [7]. It explains the generative process forthe observed data by introducing a set of latent variables.
These variables correspond to conceptual genres, which
are not given in advance. As part of the generative process, the model directly represents user preferences (howmuch each genre is preferred by a target user), which arestatistically estimated with a theoretical proof.
The observed data are associated with latent variables,
Z = {z|1, · · · , Nz }, where Nz is the total number ofthese, as outlined in Fig. 1. Each latent variable corresponds to a conceptual genre. Given user u, the set of conditional probabilities {p(z|u)|z ∈ Z} reflects the musicaltaste of user u. One possible interpretation is that user u
stochastically selects genre z according to his or her preference p(z|u), and genre z then stochastically generates
piece m and acoustic feature t according to their probabilities, p(m|z) and p(t|z). We assumed the conditional
independence of users, pieces, and features through thelatent genres. This is the key point of our model.

User Up( z | u )p(m | z )M

Z

System recommends
piece m with high p(m | u )Latent variable(conceptual genre)p (t | z )Musicalpiece

Acoustic

T Feature

Figure 1. Asymmetric representation of aspect model.
2.2.1 Formulation of Three-way Aspect Model
We will now explain the mathematical formulation for thethree-way aspect model. The assumption of conditional
independence over U , M , and T through Z leads to an
asymmetric specification for the joint probability distribution p(u, m, t, z), which is given byp(u, m, t, z) = p(u)p(z|u)p(m|z)p(t|z),(3)where p(u) is the prior probability of user u. p(u, m, t, z)
is the probability that user u will select genre z and simultaneously listen to timbre t in piece m.
Marginalizing out z, we obtain joint probability distribution p(u, m, t) over U , M , and T :p(u, m, t) =p(u)p(z|u)p(m|z)p(t|z),(4)zwhere the unknown model parameters are {p(z|u)|z ∈Z, u ∈ U }, {p(m|z)|m ∈ M, z ∈ Z}, and {p(t|z)|t ∈T, z ∈ Z}, which are estimated by using rating matrix R
and content matrix C. After these are estimated, musicalpieces are ranked foru according to p(m|u ) ∝ given usert p(u , m, t) ∝t,z p(z|u )p(m|z)p(t|z).
2.2.2 Estimation of Model Parameters
We will next explain how the model parameters are estimated. Let a tuple (u, m, t) be an event where user ulistens to timbre t in piece m. Here, we assumed that each
event would occur independently. The likelihood of theparameters for the observed data is given byL =p(u, m, t)n(u,m,t) ,
(5)
u,m,t

where n(u, m, t) is the number of events (u, m, t). In thisstudy, we assumed that n(u, m, t) was proportional to the
product of ru,m and cm,t . That is, n(u, m, t) ∝ ru,m ×
cm,t . This is based on the general observation that event(u, m, t) occurs more frequently if user u prefers piece mmore or the weight of timbre t in piece m is higher.
Given the observed data (rating matrix R and content
matrix C), the log-likelihood, L, is obtained byn(u, m, t) log p(u, m, t).
(6)
L=
u,m,t

To estimate the parameters that maximize Eq. (6), we use
the deterministic annealing EM (DAEM) algorithm [8],which can avoid the local maximum problem.

3 IMPROVED EFFICIENCY AND SCALABILITY
Recommender systems can be categorized into memorybased and model-based groups in terms of methodology.
The former always uses the entire data, R and C, to makerecommendations. The latter, on the other hand, uses thesedata to train the assumed models of estimating user preferences. These models are then used to make recommendations. The latter can generally achieve better responses
in ranking musical pieces once the models are constructed.
However, the computational cost involved in training thesemodels tends to be high. Our system, which belongs to thelatter group, also suffers from this disadvantage.
3.1 Problems and Approach
The computational complexity of training the aspect model
via the EM algorithm is O(NU NM NT NZ ) ≈ O(NU NM ),taking into account that NT and NZ , which are set to 64
and 10, remain constant. This causes two serious issues.
One concerns efficiency; this costly training is required
whenever the observed data changes. The other concerns
scalability; both the computational time and memory load
rapidly increase according to O(NU NM ). Although theefficiency and scalability are important factors for practically managing recommender systems on a commercial
scale, they have scarcely been taken into account.
To improve the efficiency, we propose an incremental
training method for the three-way aspect model. Ours is
an extended version of a method given by Zhang et al. [9]that efficiently updates the basic (two-way) aspect model
used for collaborative filtering. To improve the scalability,
we integrate the incremental training method with a clustering method while improving the recommendation accuracy. Note that the use of clustering methods degrades theaccuracy in general due to some approximations [10].
3.2 Incremental Training Method
We will now explain the incremental training method that
updates the partial parameters of the aspect model. After
this, we will call the model that is initially obtained using
the EM-based training method a base model. On the other
hand, we will call the model that is obtained by incrementally training the base model an updated model.
Our method individually addresses the following threecases to obtain the updated model:
1. Updating the base model for a registered user (∈ U )who provides new rating scores.
2. Extending the base model for a non-registered user(∈
/ U ) who provides some rating scores.
3. Extending the base model for a non-registered piece(∈/ M ) that has no rating scores.
While the size of the model (the number of parameters) remains unchanged in the first case, it increases in the others
because non-registered users or pieces are added.
3.2.1 Updating Profiles of Registered Users
Given specific user u, conditional probabilistic distribution {p(z|u)|z ∈ Z}, which is called a user profile, captures the user’s musical preference. Recall that p(z|u) represents how likely user u is to select conceptual genre z

according to the musical preference. The model assumes
that the profiles of all users are independent. Therefore,
when a user newly provides (changes) some rating scores,
we only need to update his or her profile without affecting
the profiles of the others to keep the log-likelihood maximized. This contributes to improved efficiency.
We aimed at updating the profile of registered user u :{p(z|u )|z ∈ Z, u ∈ U }, where user u has provided
some new rating scores. We assumed that model parameters other than the profile of user u would be constant.
Therefore, the maximization of log-likelihood L is equivalent to that of the sum of terms concerning user u in
L. We let Lu be the log-likelihood for the observed data
concerning user u , which is given byLu =n(u , m, t) log p(m, t|u )
(7)
m,t



=

log



p(m|z)p(t|z)p(z|u ), (8)z<m,t|u >where we introduced a new operator, <m,t|u > , for X
(X is arbitrary), which represents m,t n(u , m, t)X. Using Jensen’s inequality, we can rewrite Eq. (8) as p(m|z)p(t|z)
Lu =
log
p(z|u )δm,t(9)
δ
m,t

z
<m,t|u >≥<m,t|u >+ p(m|z)p(t|z)δm,tzlog δm,t ,log p(z|u )(10)<m,t|u >where δm,t is given by δm,t = z p(m|z)p(t|z).
Because p(m|z) and p(t|z) are constant, the maximization of Lu is equivalent to that of the first term of Eq. (10).
This introduces the following maximization problem:  p(m|z)p(t|z)
Maximizelog p(z|u ), (11)δm,t<m,t|u > z
p(z|u ) = 1, (12)s.t.
zwhere Eq. (11) is an objective function and Eq. (12) is aconstraint function. {p(z|u )|z ∈ Z} are the variables tobe optimized. Using the Lagrangian multiplier method,
we can finally obtain the user-profile updating formula:p(m|z)p(t|z)
n(u , m, t) z  p(m|z )p(t|z )m,tp(z|u ) =. (13)n(u , m, t)
m,t3.2.2 Creating Profiles of Non-registered Users
We aimed at creating the profile of non-registered user u :/ U }, where user u has some rating{p(z|u )|z ∈ Z, u ∈scores for registered pieces, {ru ,m |m ∈ M }. Note thatthese scores were not used for training the base model. In
this case, we can apply the updating formula (13) to create
the profile by using p(m|z) and p(t|z) that were estimatedby using the rating scores of registered users, U .

…

…

Clustering
Representative users

…
Z

T

Core
model

T

Partialupdating…

Representative pieces T
Clustering…

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Users UMusical pieces M

Musical piece 1

Z…
…

Users UGroup 1

2…

Partialupdating T

Z

Z

…

Musical pieces M…

1Group 2

3
4

User

2

3

4

5

1 0 φ 30 φ φ 4
φ 4 4 φ
φ 3 φ 1

4

Rating matrix

32
1

Representative piece
Representative user

Users U

1

2

3

1

0.33

φ

3.50

2

3.50

4.00

1.33

Figure 3. Calculation of new rating matrix for representative users and musical pieces.

Musical pieces M

Figure 2. Overview of scalability enhancement method.
The computational complexity of creating (updating)the profile of user u is O(ΔNM ), where ΔNM is thenumber of pieces that were rated by user u . We only needto recalculate the ΔNM terms concerning these pieces ineach summation of the updating formula (13).
3.2.3 Registering Non-registered Musical Pieces
We aimed at estimating the probabilities that piece m will
be generated from conceptual genres: {p(m |z)|z ∈ Z},
where m is a non-registered piece. Here, we can obtain the probabilistic distribution {p(z|m )|z ∈ Z} in thesame way as that described above. After the distribution
is obtained, p(m |z) is given by p(m |z) ∝ p(z|m )/p(z).
Note that no piece m has been rated by users. That is,
only content-based data {cm ,t |t ∈ T } are available. Therefore, the constant-time formula is obtained byp(t|z)cm ,t z  p(t|z )p(z|m ) = t.
(14)cm ,tt

3.3 Scalability Enhancement Method
Let us now explain the scalability enhancement method,which enables the system to efficiently deal with large
numbers of users and musical pieces. Figure 2 shows theoverview of the method. The method is first used to construct a “core” model for fewer virtual representative users
and pieces by normally using EM-based offline training.
Then, all users, U , and all pieces, M , which are virtuallyregarded as non-registered users and pieces, are added tothe core model by using incremental training. Note that
there are two orders in adding U and M . We determined
the best one in Section 4.4. Here, the problem is how tocreate representative users and pieces from U and M .
To solve this problem, we introduced clustering such as
the K-means method. All users, U , were classified into asmall number of user groups. We used the Pearson correlation coefficient to calculate the similarity two users hadin preferences. This is a typical measure in collaborative
filtering (see [6]). On the other hand, all pieces, M , wereclassified into a small number of music groups according
to the Euclidean distance between the feature vectors of
two pieces. Finally, the representative users and pieces
were determined as the centroids of these groups.

One problem remaining is how to create a rating matrix and a content matrix for these representatives. Thesematrices are used to train the core model. The former isobtained as outlined in Fig. 3. A score provided to a representative piece by a representative user is the average ofactual scores that were provided to musical pieces in thecorresponding music group by users in the correspondinguser group. The latter is obtained by calculating the average of feature vectors in each music group.
4 EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
Here, we report on several experiments that were conducted to evaluate our methods.
4.1 Experimental Conditions
The collaborative and content-based data (R and C) wereprepared in the same way as in our previous study [6].
The musical pieces we used were Japanese songs on single
CDs that were ranked in the weekly top-20 sales rankingsfrom 2000 to 2005. The corresponding rating scores werecollected from Amazon.co.jp. After unreliable users andpieces had been removed that had less than four scores,
NU was 316 and NM was 358. The percentages for scores
0, · · · , 4 in rating matrix R correspond to 57.9%, 19.1%,
8.57%, 4.85%, and 9.54%. The density of R was 2.19%.
4.2 Evaluation Measure
The experiments were conducted with 10-fold cross validation, i.e., training matrix Rt and evaluation matrix Re
were created from rating matrix R by randomly masking
10% of the actual scores in R, as outlined in Fig. 4.
We used an evaluation measure we had previously proposed [6] to calculate the accuracy of recommendations.
This measure calculates the ratio of favorites to the number of recommended pieces whose scores are masked over
all users. We examined the entire top-x rankings of allusers (x = 1, 3, 10). Figure 5 shows an example in thecase of x = 3. Note that we could not evaluate all therecommended pieces (the total was xNU ) because mostof them had not actually been rated by users (the corresponding scores were φ in Re ). Here, we let Nr be thetotal number of recommended pieces whose scores weremaskedbut were actually r (0 ≤ r ≤ 4), and let N be
N =r Nr . Obviously, N was much less than xNU .
We let Ar be the ratio of Nr to N , That is, Ar = Nr /N .
A higher value for A4 indicates better performance. If
random pieces are recommended, A4 will become 57.9%,
which is the same as the percentage for score 4 in R.

2

3

1

φ

3

4

φ

3

4

φ

2

φ

2

φ

φ

φ

φ

φ

φ
2

3

1

4

3

1

4

3

φ

φ

4

1 φ
3
Rating matrix

R

1 φ φ
Training matrix

Rt

φ
φ

φ
3
φ φ
Evaluation matrix

Re

Figure 4. Data preparation for 10-fold cross validation.

User

5

6

7

8

9

φ

4

φ

4

4

0

3

4

φ

3

4

φ

φ

0

3

φ

4

1

2

3

4

1

φ

4

1

2

0

2

1

3

φ

2

3

: Masked score,
Rating matrix
which is regarded as φ
Rank

User

2

3

95
90
85
80
75

Top-1 rankings (baseline): 93.5%
Top-3 rankings (baseline): 86.4%
Top-10 rankings (baseline): 80.7%
Top-1 rankings (incremental)
Top-3 rankings (incremental)
Top-10 rankings (incremental)

70
65
60
55
50

Musical piece
1

1

100

: Masked score

1

Recommendation accuracy [%]UserMusical piecein recommendation

1 7(4)
2 6 (φ)

6 (φ) 4 (φ) Each box represents a pair:8(4) 2(2)piece number (actual score).

3 7 (φ)3 ( 3 ) 4 (φ)

A4 = 0.50

Top-3 rankings

Figure 5. Calculation of recommendation accuracy.
4.3 Evaluation of Incremental Training Method
We evaluated our incremental training method for the threecases described in Section 3.
4.3.1 Recommendations to Registered Users
An objective was to observe the decrease in the accuracyof recommendations according to the decrease in the percentage of rating scores that were used to construct thebase models. In addition, we examined the differences inaccuracy between base and updated models.
Let us first explain the experimental procedures. Using
rating matrix Rt , we prepared a base model and a total often updated models. The former was constructed by using
Rt as training data. The latter was obtained as follows:
1. A temporary rating matrix, Rt , was prepared byrandomly masking the K% (K = 0, 10, 20, · · · , 90)of actual scores in training matrix Rt .
2. A temporary base model was built by using Rt as
training data.
3. An updated model was obtained by incrementallyadding the masked scores, i.e., by using Rt .
Each model was used to rank the musical pieces. To calculate accuracies, we used evaluation matrix Rt in all thesettings. These procedures were iterated ten times whileswitching the ten rating matrices that were prepared for
10-fold cross validation described in Section 4.2.
Figure 6 plots the results, which shows that our method
can appropriately adapt recommendations according to theincrease in rating scores. We found that the accuracy hardly
deteriorated even when the amount of rating scores used to
update the base model was increased to that for building it(K = 50). Although the largest difference was about 5%
in examining the top-1 rankings (x = 1), we can say thata sufficiently high accuracy was maintained.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ratio of rating scores for incremental training: K [%]Figure 6. Decrease in recommendation accuracy A4 according to increase in scores for incremental training.
4.3.2 Recommendations to Non-registered Users
An objective was to compare recommendations to registered users with those to users who had not been registered in terms of recommendation accuracy, A4 . Smallerdifferences in accuracies indicate better performance.
We will now explain the experimental procedures:
1. 10% of users, Unew , were randomly selected fromU . They were regarded as non-registered users. We
let Ureg be the remaining users (registered users).
2. A reduced training matrix, Rt , was obtained by removing Unew from training matrix Rt . That is, thesize of matrix Rt was reduced to 90% of that of Rt .
3. A temporary base model was constructed by using
Rt as training data.
4. To calculate the recommendation accuracy for Ureg ,we first did the following procedures:(a) Profiles of Ureg in the base model were updated by using Rt again.
(b) Recommendations based on the updated profiles were evaluated by using the rating scoresof Ureg in evaluation matrix Re .
To calculate the recommendation accuracy for Unew ,we then did the following procedures:(a) Profiles of Unew were created by using the rating scores of Unew that were removed in step(2).
(b) Recommendations based on the created profiles were evaluated by using the rating scoresof Unew in evaluation matrix Re .
These procedures were iterated ten times while switching the ten rating matrices that were prepared for 10-foldcross validation. To evaluate the average and variance inaccuracy, we repeated this experiment ten times.
Figure 7 plots the results, which demonstrates that ourincremental method can make accurate recommendations
to non-registered users as well as to registered users. We
found that the variances in accuracy tended to differ at asignificant level of 5% through F-tests. However, t-tests
revealed that there were no differences in the average accuracies in the three types of rankings.

Non-registered users

90
85
80
75
70
65

100
Registered pieces
Non-registered pieces

95
90
85
80
75
70
65

Top 1

Top 3

Top 10Figure 7. Recommendation accuracy A4 for registered and nonregistered users.

100

Baseline
Pieces-users
Users-pieces

95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60

60

60

Recommendation accuracy [%]Registered users

95

Recommendation accuracy [%]Recommendation accuracy [%]

100

Top 1

Top 3

Top 10Figure 8. Recommendation accuracy A4 for registered and nonregistered musical pieces.

4.3.3 Recommendations of Non-registered Musical Pieces
An objective was to compare recommendations of registered musical pieces with those of non-registered pieces.
in terms of recommendation accuracy, A4 . Smaller differences in accuracies indicate better performance.
The experimental procedures were similar to those described in Section 4.3.2 except that “Unew ” and “Ureg ”
were replaced with “Mnew ” and “Mreg ,” where Mnew
were 10% randomly selected from M , and Mreg were theremaining pieces (registered pieces). A base model wastrained by using partial data concerning Mreg . An updated model was obtained by extending the base model tothe entire data including Mnew .
Figure 8 plots the results, which shows that our incremental method can accurately recommend non-registeredpieces as well as registered pieces. We found no differences in the average accuracies in the three types of rankings through F-tests and t-tests.
4.4 Evaluation of Scalability Enhancement Method
An objective is to compare the baseline system describedin Section 2 with two scalable systems called a piecesusers system and a users-pieces system in terms of recommendation accuracy, A4 . The two scalable systems shared
the same core model for virtual representative users andpieces, and updated it in different ways corresponding to
the lower and upper paths in Fig. 2, where the numbers ofthese representatives were set to 50 each.
Figure 9 plots the results, which shows that the piecesusers system outperformed the others. This system gained
significant advantages over the baseline system in the average accuracies in the top-3 and top-10 rankings although
there were no advantages in the top-1 rankings. This indicates that the DAEM algorithm used for training the coremodel worked better due to the reduction in the sparseness of data by grouping U and M . The accuracies obtained with the users-pieces system, on the other hand,deteriorated. To create profiles of U , we should not use
the content-based data of virtual representative pieces butof real pieces, M , because the sums in Eq. (13) operateover M . Equation (14), in contrast, does not need to operate over U . That is, all real pieces should be recovered inadvance of adding all real users.

Top 1

Top 3

Top 10Figure 9. Recommendation accuracy A4 by baseline (original) system and two scalable systems.
5 CONCLUSION

We presented an incremental training method and its application to scalability enhancement for our model-based
hybrid music recommender system that uses collaborativeand content-based data. The incremental training method
efficiently updates the partial parameters of the probabilistic model with theoretical proofs according to the growthof the observed data. The scalability enhancement method,which can speed up model training a hundred fold, has thepotential to improve the accuracy of recommendations.
That is, we found a breakthrough to overcome the tradeoff, i.e., accuracy v.s. efficiency and scalability, which has
been considered to be unavoidable. In the future, we plan
to test our system with a larger database.
6 REFERENCES[1] A. Uitdenbogerd and R. van Schyndel, “A Review of Factors Affecting Music Recommender Success,” ISMIR, 2002,
pp. 204–208.
[2] G. Linden and B. Smith, “Amazon.com Recommendations:
Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering,” IEEE Internet Computing, pp. 76-80, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 76–80, 2003.
[3] C. Anderson, “The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business
Is Selling Less of More,” Hyperion, 2006.
[4] K. Hoashi, K. Matsumoto, and N. Inoue, “Personalizationof User Profiles for Content-based Music Retrieval based on
Relevance Feedback,” ACM Multimedia, 2003, pp. 110–119.
[5] B. Logan, “Music Recommendation from Song Sets,” ISMIR, 2004, pp. 425–428.
[6] K. Yoshii, M. Goto, K. Komatani, T. Ogata, and
H. G. Okuno., “Hybrid Collaborative and Content-based
Music Recommendation Using Probabilistic Model with Latent User Preferences,” ISMIR, 2006, pp. 296–301.
[7] A. Popescul, L. Ungar, D. Pennock, and S. Lawrence, “Probabilistic Models for Unified Collaborative and Contentbased Recommendation in Sparse-data Environments,” UAI,
2001, pp. 437–444.
[8] N. Ueda and R. Nakano, “Deterministic Annealing EM Algorithm,” Neural Net., Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 271–282, 1998.
[9] L. Zhang, C. Li, Y. Xu, and B. Shi, “An Efficient Solution
to Factor Drifting Problem in the pLSA Model,” CIT, 2005,
pp. 175–181.
[10] L. Ungar and D. Foster, “Clustering Methods for Collaborative Filtering,” Workshop on Recommendation Systems,
1998.