spark-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ravi Mody <rmody...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Implicit matrix factorization returning different results between spark 1.2.0 and 1.3.0
Date Wed, 06 May 2015 16:29:35 GMT
Whoops I just saw this thread, it got caught in my spam filter. Thanks for
looking into this Xiangrui and Sean.

The implicit situation does seem fairly complicated to me. The cost
function (not including the regularization term) is affected both by the
number of ratings and by the number of user/products. As we increase alpha
the contribution to the cost function from the number of users/products
diminishes compared to the contribution from the number of ratings. So
large alphas seem to favor the weighted-lambda approach, even though it's
not a perfect match. Smaller alphas favor Xiangrui's 1.3.0 approach, but
again it's not a perfect match.

I believe low alphas won't work well with regularization because both terms
in the cost function will just push everything to zero. Some of my
experiments confirm this. This leads me to think that weighted-lambda would
work better in practice, but I have no evidence of this. It may make sense
to weight lambda by sum_i cij instead?





On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Xiangrui Meng <mengxr@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ravi, we just merged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6642
> and used the same lambda scaling as in 1.2. The change will be
> included in Spark 1.3.1, which will be released soon. Thanks for
> reporting this issue! -Xiangrui
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Xiangrui Meng <mengxr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I created a JIRA for this:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6637. Since we don't have
> > a clear answer about how the scaling should be handled. Maybe the best
> > solution for now is to switch back to the 1.2 scaling. -Xiangrui
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Sean Owen <sowen@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >> Ah yeah I take your point. The squared error term is over the whole
> >> user-item matrix, technically, in the implicit case. I suppose I am
> >> used to assuming that the 0 terms in this matrix are weighted so much
> >> less (because alpha is usually large-ish) that they're almost not
> >> there, but they are. So I had just used the explicit formulation.
> >>
> >> I suppose the result is kind of scale invariant, but not exactly. I
> >> had not prioritized this property since I had generally built models
> >> on the full data set and not a sample, and had assumed that lambda
> >> would need to be retuned over time as the input grew anyway.
> >>
> >> So, basically I don't know anything more than you do, sorry!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Xiangrui Meng <mengxr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Hey Sean,
> >>>
> >>> That is true for explicit model, but not for implicit. The ALS-WR
> >>> paper doesn't cover the implicit model. In implicit formulation, a
> >>> sub-problem (for v_j) is:
> >>>
> >>> min_{v_j} \sum_i c_ij (p_ij - u_i^T v_j)^2 + lambda * X * \|v_j\|_2^2
> >>>
> >>> This is a sum for all i but not just the users who rate item j. In
> >>> this case, if we set X=m_j, the number of observed ratings for item j,
> >>> it is not really scale invariant. We have #users user vectors in the
> >>> least squares problem but only penalize lambda * #ratings. I was
> >>> suggesting using lambda * m directly for implicit model to match the
> >>> number of vectors in the least squares problem. Well, this is my
> >>> theory. I don't find any public work about it.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Xiangrui
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Sean Owen <sowen@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>>> I had always understood the formulation to be the first option you
> >>>> describe. Lambda is scaled by the number of items the user has rated
/
> >>>> interacted with. I think the goal is to avoid fitting the tastes of
> >>>> prolific users disproportionately just because they have many ratings
> >>>> to fit. This is what's described in the ALS-WR paper we link to on the
> >>>> Spark web site, in equation 5
> >>>> (
> http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/~mary/cours/stats/centrale/reco/paper/MatrixFactorizationALS.pdf
> )
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this also gets you the scale-invariance? For every additional
> >>>> rating from user i to product j, you add one new term to the
> >>>> squared-error sum, (r_ij - u_i . m_j)^2, but also, you'd increase the
> >>>> regularization term by lambda * (|u_i|^2 + |m_j|^2)  They are at least
> >>>> both increasing about linearly as ratings increase. If the
> >>>> regularization term is multiplied by the total number of users and
> >>>> products in the model, then it's fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>> I might misunderstand you and/or be speaking about something slightly
> >>>> different when it comes to invariance. But FWIW I had always
> >>>> understood the regularization to be multiplied by the number of
> >>>> explicit ratings.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Xiangrui Meng <mengxr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Okay, I didn't realize that I changed the behavior of lambda in
1.3.
> >>>>> to make it "scale-invariant", but it is worth discussing whether
this
> >>>>> is a good change. In 1.2, we multiply lambda by the number ratings
in
> >>>>> each sub-problem. This makes it "scale-invariant" for explicit
> >>>>> feedback. However, in implicit feedback model, a user's sub-problem
> >>>>> contains all item factors. Then the question is whether we should
> >>>>> multiply lambda by the number of explicit ratings from this user
or
> by
> >>>>> the total number of items. We used the former in 1.2 but changed
to
> >>>>> the latter in 1.3. So you should try a smaller lambda to get a
> similar
> >>>>> result in 1.3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sean and Shuo, which approach do you prefer? Do you know any existing
> >>>>> work discussing this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Xiangrui
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Xiangrui Meng <mengxr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> This sounds like a bug ... Did you try a different lambda? It
would
> be
> >>>>>> great if you can share your dataset or re-produce this issue
on the
> >>>>>> public dataset. Thanks! -Xiangrui
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Ravi Mody <rmody999@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>> After upgrading to 1.3.0, ALS.trainImplicit() has been returning
> vastly
> >>>>>>> smaller factors (and hence scores). For example, the first
few
> product's
> >>>>>>> factor values in 1.2.0 are (0.04821, -0.00674,  -0.0325).
In
> 1.3.0, the
> >>>>>>> first few factor values are (2.535456E-8, 1.690301E-8,
> 6.99245E-8). This
> >>>>>>> difference of several orders of magnitude is consistent
throughout
> both user
> >>>>>>> and product. The recommendations from 1.2.0 are subjectively
much
> better
> >>>>>>> than in 1.3.0. 1.3.0 trains significantly faster than 1.2.0,
and
> uses less
> >>>>>>> memory.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My first thought is that there is too much regularization
in the
> 1.3.0
> >>>>>>> results, but I'm using the same lambda parameter value.
This is a
> snippet of
> >>>>>>> my scala code:
> >>>>>>> .....
> >>>>>>> val rank = 75
> >>>>>>> val numIterations = 15
> >>>>>>> val alpha = 10
> >>>>>>> val lambda = 0.01
> >>>>>>> val model = ALS.trainImplicit(train_data, rank, numIterations,
> >>>>>>> lambda=lambda, alpha=alpha)
> >>>>>>> .....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The code and input data are identical across both versions.
Did
> anything
> >>>>>>> change between the two versions I'm not aware of? I'd appreciate
> any help!
> >>>>>>>
>

Mime
View raw message