GLIMG: Global and Local Item Graphs for Top-N Recommender Systems

Abstract: Graph-based recommendation models work well for top-N recommender systems due to their capability to capture the potential relationships between entities. However, most of the existing methods only construct a single global item graph shared by all the users and regrettably ignore the diverse tastes between different user groups. Inspired by the success of local models for recommendation, this paper provides the first attempt to investigate multiple local item graphs along with a global item graph for graph-based recommendation models. We argue that recommendation on global and local graphs outperforms that on a single global graph or multiple local graphs. Specifically, we propose a novel graph-based recommendation model named GLIMG (Global and Local IteM Graphs), which simultaneously captures both the global and local user tastes. By integrating the global and local graphs into an adapted semi-supervised learning model, users' preferences on items are propagated globally and locally. Extensive experimental results on real-world datasets show that our proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the art counterparts on the top-N recommendation task.

\section{Introduction}

\file{elsarticle.cls} is a thoroughly re-written document class
for formatting \LaTeX{} submissions to Elsevier journals.
The class uses the environments and commands defined in \LaTeX{} kernel
without any change in the signature so that clashes with other
contributed \LaTeX{} packages such as \file{hyperref.sty},
\file{preview-latex.sty}, etc., will be minimal.
\file{elsarticle.cls} is primarily built upon the default
\file{article.cls}.  This class depends on the following packages
for its proper functioning:

\begin{enumerate}
\item \file{natbib.sty} for citation processing;
\item \file{geometry.sty} for margin settings;
\item \file{fleqn.clo} for left aligned equations;
\item \file{graphicx.sty} for graphics inclusion;
\item \file{txfonts.sty} optional font package, if the document is to
  be formatted with Times and compatible math fonts;
\item \file{hyperref.sty} optional packages if hyperlinking is
  required in the document;
\item \file{endfloat.sty} optional packages if floats to be placed at
 end of the PDF.
\end{enumerate}

All the above packages (except some optional packages) are part of any
standard \LaTeX{} installation. Therefore, the users need not be
bothered about downloading any extra packages.  Furthermore, users are
free to make use of \textsc{ams} math packages such as
\file{amsmath.sty}, \file{amsthm.sty}, \file{amssymb.sty},
\file{amsfonts.sty}, etc., if they want to.  All these packages work in
tandem with \file{elsarticle.cls} without any problems.

\section{Major Differences}

Following are the major differences between \file{elsarticle.cls}
and its predecessor package, \file{elsart.cls}:

\begin{enumerate}[\textbullet]
\item \file{elsarticle.cls} is built upon \file{article.cls}
while \file{elsart.cls} is not. \file{elsart.cls} redefines
many of the commands in the \LaTeX{} classes/kernel, which can
possibly cause surprising clashes with other contributed
\LaTeX{} packages;

\item provides preprint document formatting by default, and
optionally formats the document as per the final
style of models $1+$, $3+$ and $5+$ of Elsevier journals;

\item some easier ways for formatting \verb+list+ and
\verb+theorem+ environments are provided while people can still
use \file{amsthm.sty} package;

\item \file{natbib.sty} is the main citation processing package
  which can comprehensively handle all kinds of citations and
works perfectly with \file{hyperref.sty} in combination with
\file{hypernat.sty};

\item long title pages are processed correctly in preprint and
  final formats.

\end{enumerate}

\section{Installation}

The package is available at author resources page at Elsevier
(\url{http://www.elsevier.com/locate/latex}).
It can also be found in any of the nodes of the Comprehensive
\TeX{} Archive Network (\textsc{ctan}), one of the primary nodes
being
\url{http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/elsarticle/}.
Please download the \file{elsarticle.dtx} which is a composite
class with documentation and \file{elsarticle.ins} which is the
\LaTeX{} installer file. When we compile the
\file{elsarticle.ins} with \LaTeX{} it provides the class file,
\file{elsarticle.cls} by
stripping off all the documentation from the \verb+*.dtx+ file.
The class may be moved or copied to a place, usually,
\verb+$TEXMF/tex/latex/elsevier/+,
or a folder which will be read
by \LaTeX{} during document compilation.  The \TeX{} file
database needs updation after moving/copying class file.  Usually,
we use commands like \verb+mktexlsr+ or \verb+texhash+ depending
upon the distribution and operating system.

\section{Usage}\label{sec:usage}
The class should be loaded with the command:

\begin{vquote}
 \documentclass[<options>]{elsarticle}
\end{vquote}

\noindent where the \verb+options+ can be the following:

\begin{description}

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} preprint}]  default option which format the
  document for submission to Elsevier journals.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} review}]  similar to the \verb+preprint+
option, but increases the baselineskip to facilitate easier review
process.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} 1p}]  formats the article to the look and
feel of the final format of model 1+ journals. This is always single
column style.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} 3p}] formats the article to the look and
feel of the final format of model 3+ journals. If the journal is a two
column model, use \verb+twocolumn+ option in combination.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} 5p}] formats for model 5+ journals. This
is always of two column style.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} authoryear}] author-year citation style of
\file{natbib.sty}. If you want to add extra options of
\file{natbib.sty}, you may use the options as comma delimited strings
as arguments to \verb+\biboptions+ command. An example would be:
\end{description}

\begin{vquote}
 \biboptions{longnamesfirst,angle,semicolon}
\end{vquote}

\begin{description}
\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} number}] numbered citation style. Extra options
  can be loaded with\linebreak \verb+\biboptions+ command.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} sort\&compress}] sorts and compresses the
numbered citations. For example, citation [1,2,3] will become [1--3].

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} longtitle}] if front matter is unusually long, use
  this option to split the title page across pages with the correct
placement of title and author footnotes in the first page.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} times}] loads \file{txfonts.sty}, if
available in the system to use Times and compatible math fonts.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} reversenotenum}] Use alphabets as
author--affiliation linking labels and use numbers for author
footnotes. By default, numbers will be used as author--affiliation
linking labels and alphabets for author footnotes.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} lefttitle}] To move title and
author/affiliation block to flushleft. \verb+centertitle+ is the
default option which produces center alignment.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} endfloat}] To place all floats at the end
of the document.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} nonatbib}] To unload natbib.sty.

\item [{\tt\color{verbcolor} doubleblind}] To hide author name,
affiliation, email address etc. for double blind refereeing purpose.

\item[] All options of \file{article.cls} can be used with this
  document class.

\item[] The default options loaded are \verb+a4paper+, \verb+10pt+,
  \verb+oneside+, \verb+onecolumn+ and \verb+preprint+.

\end{description}

\section{Frontmatter}

There are two types of frontmatter coding:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item each author is
connected to an affiliation with a footnote marker; hence all
authors are grouped together and affiliations follow;
\pagebreak
\item authors of same affiliations are grouped together and the
relevant affiliation follows this group.
\end{enumerate}

An example of coding the first type is provided below.

\begin{vquote}
 \title{This is a specimen title\tnoteref{t1,t2}}
 \tnotetext[t1]{This document is the results of the research
    project funded by the National Science Foundation.}
 \tnotetext[t2]{The second title footnote which is a longer
    text matter to fill through the whole text width and
    overflow into another line in the footnotes area of the
    first page.}
\end{vquote}

\begin{vquote}
\author[1]{Jos Migchielsen\corref{cor1}%
  \fnref{fn1}}
\ead{J.Migchielsen@elsevier.com}

\author[2]{CV Radhakrishnan\fnref{fn2}}
\ead{cvr@sayahna.org}

\author[3]{CV Rajagopal\fnref{fn1,fn3}}
\ead[url]{www.stmdocs.in}
\end{vquote}

\begin{vquote}
 \cortext[cor1]{Corresponding author}
 \fntext[fn1]{This is the first author footnote.}
 \fntext[fn2]{Another author footnote, this is a very long
   footnote and it should be a really long footnote. But this
   footnote is not yet sufficiently long enough to make two
   lines of footnote text.}
 \fntext[fn3]{Yet another author footnote.}

 \address[1]{Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam,
   The Netherlands}
 \address[2]{Sayahna Foundations, JWRA 34, Jagathy,
   Trivandrum 695014, India}
 \address[3]{STM Document Engineering Pvt Ltd., Mepukada,
   Malayinkil, Trivandrum 695571, India}
\end{vquote}

The output of the above \TeX{} source is given in Clips~\ref{clip1} and
\ref{clip2}. The header portion or title area is given in
Clip~\ref{clip1} and the footer area is given in Clip~\ref{clip2}.

\deforange{blue!70}
\src{Header of the title page.}
\includeclip{1}{130 612 477 707}{1psingleauthorgroup.pdf
\deforange{orange}

\deforange{blue!70}
\src{Footer of the title page.}
\includeclip{1}{93 135 499 255}{1pseperateaug.pdf
\deforange{orange}

Most of the commands such as \verb+\title+, \verb+\author+,
\verb+\address+ are self explanatory.  Various components are
linked to each other by a label--reference mechanism; for
instance, title footnote is linked to the title with a footnote
mark generated by referring to the \verb+\label+ string of
the \verb=\tnotetext=.  We have used similar commands
such as \verb=\tnoteref= (to link title note to title);
\verb=\corref= (to link corresponding author text to
corresponding author); \verb=\fnref= (to link footnote text to
the relevant author names).  \TeX{} needs two compilations to
resolve the footnote marks in the preamble part.
Given below are the syntax of various note marks and note texts.

\begin{vquote}
  \tnoteref{<label(s)>}
  \corref{<label(s)>}
  \fnref{<label(s)>}
  \tnotetext[<label>]{<title note text>}
  \cortext[<label>]{<corresponding author note text>}
  \fntext[<label>]{<author footnote text>}
\end{vquote}

\noindent where \verb=<label(s)>= can be either one or more comma
delimited label strings. The optional arguments to the
\verb=\author= command holds the ref label(s) of the address(es)
to which the author is affiliated while each \verb=\address=
command can have an optional argument of a label. In the same
manner, \verb=\tnotetext=, \verb=\fntext=, \verb=\cortext= will
have optional arguments as their respective labels and note text
as their mandatory argument.

The following example code provides the markup of the second type
of author-affiliation.

\begin{vquote}
\author{Jos Migchielsen\corref{cor1}%
  \fnref{fn1}}
\ead{J.Migchielsen@elsevier.com}
 \address{Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam,
          The Netherlands}

\author{CV Radhakrishnan\fnref{fn2}}
\ead{cvr@sayahna.org}
 \address{Sayahna Foundations, JWRA 34, Jagathy,
    Trivandrum 695014, India}

\author{CV Rajagopal\fnref{fn1,fn3}}
\ead[url]{www.stmdocs.in}
  \address{STM Document Engineering Pvt Ltd., Mepukada,
    Malayinkil, Trivandrum 695571, India}
\end{vquote}

\vspace*{-.5pc}

\begin{vquote}
\cortext[cor1]{Corresponding author}
\fntext[fn1]{This is the first author footnote.}
\fntext[fn2]{Another author footnote, this is a very long
  footnote and it should be a really long footnote. But this
  footnote is not yet sufficiently long enough to make two lines
  of footnote text.}
\end{vquote}

The output of the above \TeX{} source is given in Clip~\ref{clip3}.

\deforange{blue!70}
\src{Header of the title page..}
\includeclip{1}{119 563 468 709}{1pseperateaug.pdf
\deforange{orange}
\pagebreak

Clip~\ref{clip4} shows the output after giving \verb+doubleblind+ class option.

\deforange{blue!70}
\src{Double blind article}
\includeclip{1}{124 567 477 670}{elstest-1pdoubleblind.pdf
\deforange{orange}

\vspace*{-.5pc}
The frontmatter part has further environments such as abstracts and
keywords.  These can be marked up in the following manner:

\begin{vquote}
 \begin{abstract}
  In this work we demonstrate the formation of a new type of
  polariton on the interface between a ....
 \end{abstract}
\end{vquote}

\vspace*{-.5pc}
\begin{vquote}
 \begin{keyword}
  quadruple exiton \sep polariton \sep WGM
 \end{keyword}
\end{vquote}

\noindent Each keyword shall be separated by a \verb+\sep+ command.
\textsc{msc} classifications shall be provided in
the keyword environment with the commands
\verb+\MSC+. \verb+\MSC+ accepts an optional
argument to accommodate future revisions.
eg., \verb=\MSC[2008]=. The default is 2000.\looseness=-1

\subsection{New page}
Sometimes you may need to give a page-break and start a new page after
title, author or abstract. Following commands can be used for this
purpose.

\begin{vquote}
  \newpageafter{title}
  \newpageafter{author}
  \newpageafter{abstract}
\end{vquote}

\begin{itemize}
\leftskip-2pc
\item [] {\tt\color{verbcolor} \verb+\newpageafter{title}+} typeset the title alone on one page.

\item [] {\tt\color{verbcolor} \verb+\newpageafter{author}+}  typeset the title
and author details on one page.

\item [] {\tt\color{verbcolor} \verb+\newpageafter{abstract}+}
typeset the title,
author details and abstract \& keywords one one page.

\end{itemize}

\section{Floats}
{Figures} may be included using the command, \verb+\includegraphics+ in
combination with or without its several options to further control
graphic. \verb+\includegraphics+ is provided by \file{graphic[s,x].sty}
which is part of any standard \LaTeX{} distribution.
\file{graphicx.sty} is loaded by default. \LaTeX{} accepts figures in
the postscript format while pdf\LaTeX{} accepts \file{*.pdf},
\file{*.mps} (metapost), \file{*.jpg} and \file{*.png} formats.
pdf\LaTeX{} does not accept graphic files in the postscript format.

The \verb+table+ environment is handy for marking up tabular
material. If users want to use \file{multirow.sty},
\file{array.sty}, etc., to fine control/enhance the tables, they
are welcome to load any package of their choice and
\file{elsarticle.cls} will work in combination with all loaded
packages.

\section[Theorem and ...]{Theorem and theorem like environments}

\file{elsarticle.cls} provides a few shortcuts to format theorems and
theorem-like environments with ease. In all commands the options that
are used with the \verb+\newtheorem+ command will work exactly in the same
manner. \file{elsarticle.cls} provides three commands to format theorem or
theorem-like environments:

\begin{vquote}
 \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
 \newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}
 \newdefinition{rmk}{Remark}
 \newproof{pf}{Proof}
 \newproof{pot}{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}}
\end{vquote}

The \verb+\newtheorem+ command formats a
theorem in \LaTeX's default style with italicized font, bold font
for theorem heading and theorem number at the right hand side of the
theorem heading.  It also optionally accepts an argument which
will be printed as an extra heading in parentheses.

\begin{vquote}
  \begin{thm}
   For system (8), consensus can be achieved with
   $\|T_{\omega z}$
   ...
     \begin{eqnarray}\label{10}
     ....
     \end{eqnarray}
  \end{thm}
\end{vquote}

Clip~\ref{clip5} will show you how some text enclosed between the
above code\goodbreak \noindent looks like:

\vspace*{6pt}
\deforange{blue!70}
\src{{\ttfamily\color{verbcolor}\expandafter\@gobble\string\\ newtheorem}}
\includeclip{2}{1 1 453 120}{jfigs.pdf}
\deforange{orange}

The \verb+\newdefinition+ command is the same in
all respects as its\linebreak \verb+\newtheorem+ counterpart except that
the font shape is roman instead of italic.  Both
\verb+\newdefinition+ and \verb+\newtheorem+ commands
automatically define counters for the environments defined.

\vspace*{6pt}
\deforange{blue!70}
\src{{\ttfamily\color{verbcolor}\expandafter\@gobble\string\\ newdefinition}}
\includeclip{1}{1 1 453 105}{jfigs.pdf}
\deforange{orange}

The \verb+\newproof+ command defines proof environments with
upright font shape.  No counters are defined.

\vspace*{6pt}
\deforange{blue!70}
\src{{\ttfamily\color{verbcolor}\expandafter\@gobble\string\\ newproof}}
\includeclip{3}{1 1 453 65}{jfigs.pdf}
\deforange{orange}

Users can also make use of \verb+amsthm.sty+ which will override
all the default definitions described above.

\section[Enumerated ...]{Enumerated and Itemized Lists}
\file{elsarticle.cls} provides an extended list processing macros
which makes the usage a bit more user friendly than the default
\LaTeX{} list macros.   With an optional argument to the
\verb+\begin{enumerate}+ command, you can change the list counter
type and its attributes.

\begin{vquote}
 \begin{enumerate}[1.]
 \item The enumerate environment starts with an optional
   argument `1.', so that the item counter will be suffixed
   by a period.
 \item You can use `a)' for alphabetical counter and '(i)' for
   roman counter.
  \begin{enumerate}[a)]
    \item Another level of list with alphabetical counter.
    \item One more item before we start another.
\end{vquote}

\deforange{blue!70}
\src{List -- Enumerate}
\includeclip{4}{1 1 453 185}{jfigs.pdf}
\deforange{orange}

Further, the enhanced list environment allows one to prefix a
string like `step' to all the item numbers.

\begin{vquote}
 \begin{enumerate}[Step 1.]
  \item This is the first step of the example list.
  \item Obviously this is the second step.
  \item The final step to wind up this example.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{vquote}

\deforange{blue!70}
\src{List -- enhanced}
\includeclip{5}{1 1 313 83}{jfigs.pdf}
\deforange{orange}

\section{Cross-references}
In electronic publications, articles may be internally
hyperlinked. Hyperlinks are generated from proper
cross-references in the article.  For example, the words
\textcolor{black!80}{Fig.~1} will never be more than simple text,
whereas the proper cross-reference \verb+\ref{tiger}+ may be
turned into a hyperlink to the figure itself:
\textcolor{blue}{Fig.~1}.  In the same way,
the words \textcolor{blue}{Ref.~[1]} will fail to turn into a
hyperlink; the proper cross-reference is \verb+\cite{Knuth96}+.
Cross-referencing is possible in \LaTeX{} for sections,
subsections, formulae, figures, tables, and literature
references.

\section[Mathematical ...]{Mathematical symbols and formulae}

Many physical/mathematical sciences authors require more
mathematical symbols than the few that are provided in standard
\LaTeX. A useful package for additional symbols is the
\file{amssymb} package, developed by the American Mathematical
Society. This package includes such oft-used symbols as
$\lesssim$ (\verb+\lesssim+), $\gtrsim$ (\verb+\gtrsim+)  or
$\hbar$ (\verb+\hbar+). Note that your \TeX{}
system should have the \file{msam} and \file{msbm} fonts installed. If
you need only a few symbols, such as $\Box$ (\verb+\Box+), you might try the
package \file{latexsym}.

Another point which would require authors' attention is the
breaking up of long equations.  When you use
\file{elsarticle.cls} for formatting your submissions in the
\verb+preprint+ mode, the document is formatted in single column
style with a text width of 384pt or 5.3in.  When this document is
formatted for final print and if the journal happens to be a double column
journal, the text width will be reduced to 224pt at for 3+
double column and 5+ journals respectively. All the nifty
fine-tuning in equation breaking done by the author goes to waste in
such cases.  Therefore, authors are requested to check this
problem by typesetting their submissions in final format as well
just to see if their equations are broken at appropriate places,
by changing appropriate options in the document class loading
command, which is explained in section~\ref{sec:usage},
\nameref{sec:usage}. This allows authors to fix any equation breaking
problem before submission for publication.
\file{elsarticle.cls} supports formatting the author submission
in different types of final format.  This is further discussed in
section \ref{sec:final}, \nameref{sec:final}.

\subsection*{Displayed equations and double column journals}

Many Elsevier journals print their text in two columns. Since
the preprint layout uses a larger line width than such columns,
the formulae are too wide for the line width in print. Here is an
example of an equation  (see equation 6) which is perfect in a
single column preprint format:

\bigskip
\setlength\Sep{6pt}
\src{See equation (6)}
\deforange{blue!70}
\includeclip{4}{105 500 500 700}{1psingleauthorgroup.pdf}
\deforange{orange}

\noindent When this document is typeset for publication in a
model 3+ journal with double columns, the equation will overlap
the second column text matter if the equation is not broken at
the appropriate location.

\vspace*{6pt}
\deforange{blue!70}
\src{See equation (6) overprints into second column}
\includeclip{3}{59 421 532 635}{elstest-3pd.pdf}
\deforange{orange}
\vspace*{6pt}

\noindent The typesetter will try to break the equation which
need not necessarily be to the liking of the author or as it
happens, typesetter's break point may be semantically incorrect.
Therefore, authors may check their submissions for the incidence
of such long equations and break the equations at the correct
places so that the final typeset copy will be as they wish.

\section{Bibliography}

Three bibliographic style files (\verb+*.bst+) are provided ---
\file{elsarticle-num.bst}, \file{elsarticle-num-names.bst} and
\file{elsarticle-harv.bst} --- the first one can be used for the
numbered scheme, second one for numbered with new options of
\file{natbib.sty}. The third one is for the author year
scheme.

In \LaTeX{} literature, references are listed in the
\verb+thebibliography+ environment.  Each reference is a
\verb+\bibitem+ and each \verb+\bibitem+ is identified by a label,
by which it can be cited in the text:

\verb+\bibitem[Elson et al.(1996)]{ESG96}+ is cited as
\verb+\citet{ESG96}+.

\noindent In connection with cross-referencing and
possible future hyperlinking it is not a good idea to collect
more that one literature item in one \verb+\bibitem+.  The
so-called Harvard or author-year style of referencing is enabled
by the \LaTeX{} package \file{natbib}. With this package the
literature can be cited as follows:

\begin{enumerate}[\textbullet]
\item Parenthetical: \verb+\citep{WB96}+ produces (Wettig \& Brown, 1996).
\item Textual: \verb+\citet{ESG96}+ produces Elson et al. (1996).
\item An affix and part of a reference:
\verb+\citep[e.g.][Ch. 2]{Gea97}+ produces (e.g. Governato et
al., 1997, Ch. 2).
\end{enumerate}

In the numbered scheme of citation, \verb+\cite{<label>}+ is used,
since \verb+\citep+ or \verb+\citet+ has no relevance in the numbered
scheme.  \file{natbib} package is loaded by \file{elsarticle} with
\verb+numbers+ as default option.  You can change this to author-year
or harvard scheme by adding option \verb+authoryear+ in the class
loading command.  If you want to use more options of the \file{natbib}
package, you can do so with the \verb+\biboptions+ command, which is
described in the section \ref{sec:usage}, \nameref{sec:usage}.  For
details of various options of the \file{natbib} package, please take a
look at the \file{natbib} documentation, which is part of any standard
\LaTeX{} installation.

In addition to the above standard \verb+.bst+ files, there are 10
journal-specific \verb+.bst+ files also available.
Instruction for using these \verb+.bst+ files can be found at
\href{http://support.stmdocs.in/wiki/index.php?title=Model-wise_bibliographic_style_files}
{http://support.stmdocs.in}

\section{Graphical abstract and highlights}
A template for adding graphical abstract and highlights are available
now. This will appear as the first two pages of the PDF before the
article content begins.

\pagebreak
Please refer below to see how to code them.

\begin{vquote}
....
....

\end{abstract}

\begin{graphicalabstract}
\end{graphicalabstract}

\begin{highlights}
\item Research highlight 1
\item Research highlight 2
\end{highlights}

\begin{keyword}
....
....
\end{vquote}

\section{Final print}\label{sec:final}

The authors can format their submission to the page size and margins
of their preferred journal.  \file{elsarticle} provides four
class options for the same. But it does not mean that using these
options you can emulate the exact page layout of the final print copy.

\lmrgn=3em
\begin{description}
\item [\texttt{1p}:] $1+$ journals with a text area of
384pt $\times$ 562pt or 13.5cm $\times$ 19.75cm or 5.3in $\times$
7.78in, single column style only.

\item [\texttt{3p}:] $3+$ journals with a text area of 468pt
$\times$ 622pt or 16.45cm $\times$ 21.9cm or 6.5in $\times$
8.6in, single column style.

\item [\texttt{twocolumn}:] should be used along with 3p option if the
journal is $3+$ with the same text area as above, but double column
style.

\item [\texttt{5p}:] $5+$ with text area of 522pt $\times$
682pt or 18.35cm $\times$ 24cm or 7.22in $\times$ 9.45in,
double column style only.
\end{description}

Following pages have the clippings of different parts of
the title page of different journal models typeset in final
format.

Model $1+$ and $3+$  will have the same look and
feel in the typeset copy when presented in this document. That is
also the case with the double column $3+$ and $5+$ journal article
pages. The only difference will be wider text width of
higher models.  Therefore we will look at the
different portions of a typical single column journal page and
that of a double column article in the final format.

\begin{center}
\hypertarget{bsc}{}
\hyperlink{sc}{
{\bf [Specimen single column article -- Click here]}
}

\hypertarget{bsc}{}
\hyperlink{dc}{
{\bf [Specimen double column article -- Click here]}
}
\end{center}

\src{}\hypertarget{sc}{}
\deforange{blue!70}
\hyperlink{bsc}{\includeclip{1}{88 120 514 724}{elstest-1p.pdf}}
\deforange{orange}

\src{}\hypertarget{dc}{}
\deforange{blue!70}
\hyperlink{bsc}{\includeclip{1}{27 61 562 758}{elstest-5p.pdf}}
\deforange{orange}

\end{document}

\section{}
\section{INTRODUCTION}

Due to the prosperity and development of e-commerce, recommender systems now play an increasingly significant role. For companies (e.g., Amazon, Netflix and Alibaba), recommender systems are widely used to target potential customers. In reality, top-N recommender systems are very popular, which aim to generate a meaningful list of items for users \cite{performance2010, LCR}.

Among the existing recommendation techniques, collaborative filtering (CF) methods are widely adopted and achieve impressive performance. CF-based methods can be generally categorized into two groups: latent factor models and neighborhood methods \cite{FMN}. Latent factor models work by modeling users and items using latent factors while neighborhood methods aim to estimate the relationships between users (i.e. user-based methods) or items (i.e. item-based methods).

As a neighborhood-based method, the graph-based recommendation approach has attracted increasing attention in recommender systems. It alleviates the data sparsity problem by capturing the structural transitivity when defining the similarity among users or items\cite{HF, birank}.
In graph-based methods, users or items are usually denoted as nodes, the relationships between users or items are represented by edges and the preferences of users for items are propagated on the nodes.
Since item-based methods have been shown to achieve satisfied performance and exhibit high scalability to the top-N recommendation task compared with user-based methods \cite{glslim,fism,slim,itemcf}, graph-based models normally rely on the item graph \cite{itemrank,itemgraph}. However, most of the existing graph-based models only construct a single global item graph shared by all the users and regrettably ignore the diverse tastes between different user groups.

Inspired by the development of local models in the recommender systems, in this paper, we propose to solve the above problem by constructing multiple local item graphs along with a global item graphs for the graph-based model. Our method GLIMG (\underline{G}lobal and \underline{L}ocal \underline{I}te\underline{M} \underline{G}raphs) captures not only the global taste shared by all the users but also the local tastes of different user subgroups. Extensive experiments show that our model outperforms competing top-N recommendation models on real world datasets.

The main contributions of this study are summarized as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item  We propose GLIMG\footnote{A preliminary report of our work was accepted at IEEE BigData' 2019 \cite{lin2019fast}. We have extended it in the following aspects. $(1)$ By combining the global and local item graphs competently, we validate the effectiveness of our proposed GLIMG. (2) We discuss the benefit of taking into account the global taste and local preferences in this paper. (3) We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the sensitivity of hyper-parameters.}, a novel graph-based model which combines a global and multiple local item graphs to capture not only global preferences but also the more nuanced tastes within subgroups.
\item  By integrating item graphs into an adapted semi-supervised learning model, GLIMG encodes users' preferences and generate personalized recommendations.
\item We conduct extensive experiments and ablation studies to show the effectiveness of GLIMG method on two real-word datasets.
\end{itemize}

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Related works are reviewed in section 2. We then detail our method GLIMG in section 3 and section 4. Intensive experiments are conducted in section 5. Finally, we conclude our work in section 6.

\section{Related Works}
There are two categories of works related to our work. In this section, we first study the graph-based recommendation methods and then review the different local models for recommendation.

\subsection{Graph-based recommendation}
Graph structures are widely used in the various recommendation tasks such as point-of-interest (POI) recommendation \cite{poi,zhang2020modeling}, web pages ranking \cite{pagerank}, online mobile recommendation\cite{he2020contextual,he2020learning}, and product recommendation \cite{itemrank,sun2019research,qiu2018bprh,sha2019attentive} for their natural modeling the relationship between entities.
A commonly studied case in recommender system is how to generate meaningful recommendation by exploiting limited user feedbacks. To alleviate such problem, different graph models are proposed to improve the performance of recommender systems. For example, Gu et al. propose GWNMF \cite{GWNMF}, a graph regularized nonnegative matrix factorization model, which constructs user and item graph, encoding the graph structure information or content information to regularize the latent factor model. Kang et al. \cite{kz2016} propose to preserve affinity and structure information about rating matrix by constructing both user and item graphs. He et al. \cite{birank, trirank} treat recommendation task as a vertex ranking problem. They propose BiRank \cite{birank} to model users and items as a user-item bipartite graph, which takes into account both the graph structure and the prior knowledge. TriRank \cite{trirank} allows additional information to be incorporated, which exploits review information and models the user-item-aspect as a tripartite graph. In our work, we extend the traditional item graph model by combining the global and local item correlations while taking into account the structural smoothness, which has not been studied before.

\subsection{Local models for recommendation}
Local models have been shown to achieve impressive performance in recommender systems \cite{focuslearning, LLORMA, clusteringitem}. Early works \cite{clusteringitem, scalable} cluster users or items and build multiple local models in order to improve the scalability of recommender systems.
Lee et al. \cite{LCR,LLORMA} assume the rating matrix is locally low-rank. LLORMA \cite{LLORMA} first choose anchor points and identify neighborhoods of each anchor point. A local low-rank latent factor model is estimated for every neighborhood and ratings are predicted by weighting all local models. LCR \cite{LCR} is then proposed to generalize LLORMA to a ranked loss minimization method. Their methods use local low-rank models to generate personalized recommendations, but they have not considered the global behavior of all users.

Christakopoulou et al. propose GLSLIM method \cite{glslim} which extends the SLIM model \cite{slim} by combining global and multiple local item-item models. They first use SLIM for estimating an item-item coefficient matrix, then separate the users into subsets and compute local item-item correlation matrix, allowing the user subsets to be updated. Since their method is based on SLIM, they only consider items that have been co-rated and thus fail to capture the transitive relationship between items that have not co-rated information \cite{fism}. A similar work GLSVD \cite{glsvd} is proposed as a latent approach to personalized combine global common aspects and local user subset specific aspects. Different from the above two works, our work is a graph-based approach, which propagates users' preferences to items based on their proximity. Besides, our method do not update the assignment of user subsets due to the unsatisfied efficiency \cite{glslim,glsvd} while our method outperforms competing top-N recommendation methods.

\section{Recommendation on Item Graph}
In this section, we first introduce the main mathematical notations used in this paper. Then we describe how to construct the item graph in detail. We also present two related hypotheses for item graph (i.e. rating smoothness and a soft constraint for the learned ratings).
\subsection{Notation}
Let $G = (P, E) $ be an undirected item graph, where $P$ represents the set of item nodes, and $E$ represents the set of edges. We use $u$ and $p$ to represent the users and items, respectively. Edges carry the relationship strength between items. The relationship between item $i$ and item $j$ is depicted by a correlation score $w_{ij}$. We denote the number of users by $m$ and the number of items by $n$. The rating matrix is denoted by $R$ of size $m \times n$, we use $R_u$ and $R_i$ to represent the observed rating of users and items, respectively. Predicted values are denoted by a \texttt{\char`\~}  over it, for example, the final predicted rating matrix is represented as $ \Tilde{R}$.
\subsection{Item Graph}
Current recommender systems face the data sparsity problem and the performance of most recommendation methods could degrade significantly when there is insufficient rating data. For example, a large amount of labeled rating data is needed for well trained deep learning models on recommendation tasks. The data sparsity problem motivates the semi-supervised learning (SSL) techniques to utilize the unlabeled data and alleviate the sparseness of recommendation datasets \cite{poi}.
Graph-based SSL, as one of SSL techniques, performs label propagation on the affinity graphs, and then the label information (rating) propagates from labeled data (e.g. items with rating) to unlabeled data (e.g. items without rating) based on their proximity, which is well-suited for the real-world recommender systems \cite{HF}. In graph-based recommendation methods, the entities such as users or items are represented as nodes, and the interactions or similarities between the nodes are encoded by edges.
Inspired by item-item models which work well on top-N recommendation task for their satisfactory performance and high scalability, in this work, we construct item graphs by merging users' preferences into the item nodes. The entries of each item node $p_i \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the $i$th column of rating matrix R.
To construct an item graph, the edges which encode the proximity information between nodes are necessary to estimate. There are different similarity measurements such as cosine similarity and Pearson correlation coefficient \cite{itemcf}. For example, the cosine similarity between item i and item j, is computed by:
\begin{equation}
cos(p_i,p_j)=\frac{p_i\cdot p_j}{\|p_i\|\|p_j\|}
\end{equation}
where ` $\cdot$ ' represents the vector dot product operation and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the Euclidean norm. However, the similarity score could be negative since the output of the cosine similarity is [-1,1]. To avoid such case, in this work, the correlation between a pair of items $p_i$ and $p_j$ are projected to the range [0,1] and computed by:
\begin{equation}
w_{ij}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is a hyper-parameter, and $cos(p_i, p_j)$ denotes the cosine similarity between item nodes.

\subsection{Rating Smoothness}
Users usually tend to give similar ratings on similar items. To capture the above assumption and keep the predicting scores be smooth enough with respect to the intrinsic structure of the item nodes \cite{itemgraph,lgc}, the graph regularization is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} W_{ij}\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $ \Tilde{R_i}$ and $ \Tilde{R_j}$ represent the final users' preference scores which need to be learned by the model. $\Tilde{R_i}$ is a vector whose dimension is $m$ , representing the predicted ratings of all users to item $i$. $W_{ij}=[w_{ij}]$ represents the all edge weight of the item graph, calculated by Eq. (2). In addition, $D_{ii}=\sum_{j} W_{ij}$ is a diagonal matrix which encodes the degree of nodes for normalization.

\subsection{Hard Constraint}
In order to keep the observed ratings unchanged while assign similar predicting scores to similar items, a hard constraint is applied to the Eq. (3) and formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \ &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} W_{ij}\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 \\
s.t. \ &\Tilde{R_i}(rated) = R_i\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Tilde{R_i}(rated)$ means the observed rated scores of the predicted item vector.

\subsection{Soft Constraint}
However, to solve a hard constraint is usually computational inefficient \cite{itemgraph}. Following \cite{itemgraph}, the hard constraint in Eq. (4) is replaced with a soft one through introducing a regularization term.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \ &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} W_{ij}\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 +\mu \sum_{i=1}^n\| \Tilde{R_i}-R_i\|^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ denotes the weight of regularization term.

\section{The GLIMG approach}
In this section, we first introduce our proposed GLIMG algorithm, then we provide a close-form solution for GLIMG. At last, we analyze the time complexity of GLIMG.
\subsection{Global and Local Item Graphs (GLIMG)}
In this work, we argue that a single global item graph shared by all users can not accurately capture the diverse tastes between different user subgroups. We tackle the above problem by constructing multiple local items graphs along with a global item graph, in this way, our model GLIMG simultaneously captures the global and local user tastes.

To be specific, we first assign all users into $k$ different subgroups using clustering algorithms. In this work, we use a popular clustering approach k-means++ algorithm \cite{kmeanspp} in the experiments and it is conceivable that more adaptive clustering algorithms can lead the model to achieve better performance. As a variant of k-means, the process of the k-means++ method is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A data point is randomly chosen as the first center.
\item $k-1$ points are iteratively selected as the centers based on the distance from data points to the nearest center that has already been chosen.
\item Assign the set of data points to the $k$th cluster if they are closer to the $k$th center than other centers.
\item Recalculate the center point of each cluster.
\item Repeat step 3 and step 4 until convergence.
\end{enumerate}

Similar to GLSLIM \cite{glslim}, we then split the user-item rating matrix $R$ into $k$ training matrices as user subgroups which are denoted as $R^{L_u}$, $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$.
After assigning users into $k$ subsets, there are $k$ training matrices which are denoted as $R^{L_u}$, $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$. If the user u belongs to the $L_u$th subset, then the $u$th row of $R^{L_u}$ will be the $u$th row of $R$, otherwise, the $u$th row of $R^{L_u}$ will be empty. In other words, each user's rating information will be only appear in one training matrix.
We then estimate a local item correlation matrix $W^{L_u}$ $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$ for every user subgroup in order to combine the global and local item correlations.

To better model the item graphs and achieve personalized recommendation, we follow the traditional assumptions and design our model based on the following hypotheses.

\textbf{Hypothesis 1. Item Smoothness} The preference scores of the two items should be similar if the items are among similar graph structures.

\textbf{Hypothesis 2. Item Fitting} The item preference scores should not change too much from the initial assignment. For example, if an item receives higher rating scores than others, it is likely to receive more high ratings in the future.

\textbf{Hypothesis 3. Item Confidence } In collaborative filtering, two items are considered to have similarity if they are purchased by the same users. In other words, the similarity of the two items can be estimated by the number of users they interacted with. However, popular items can cause inaccuracy similarity calculation between items, which can result in the final recommendation results not consistent with the users' preferences. For example, Amazon researchers found that anyone who has bought books seems to have bought "Harry Potter", which makes many books are related to "Harry Potter". An underlying reason was the popularity of "Harry Potter", such behavior of purchasing this book is not useful for predicting users' preferences \cite{smith2017two,gao2018similarity}.
In addition, popular items are more likely to be viewed or known by the user, thus the absence of an interaction with these items is more likely to be treated as negative feedback in recent works \cite{gao2018similarity,steck2011item,wu2019noise}. Such phenomenon is called "item popularity bias" \cite{chen2020bias}. To debias the item popularity and achieve personalized recommendation, we design a regularization term called "item confidence".
If an item is highly correlated to many other items, the confidence of this item should be small and in order to generate personalized recommendation for users, this item's preference scores should be suppressed.

To capture the above three hypotheses, we devise the following graph regularization function for every user:

\begin{equation}
\footnotesize
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} ( g W_{ij}+ (1-g)  W_{ij}^{L_u})\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 + \mu \sum_{i=1}^n\| \Tilde{R_i}-R_i\|^2+ \gamma \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\sqrt{D_{ii}} \Tilde{R_i}\|^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where hyper-parameter $g$ balances the effect of global and local item correlation, the regularization parameters $\mu$ and $\gamma$ control the weight among these three terms. We also constrain $W_{ii}=0$ and $W_{ii}^{L_u}=0$ to prohibit the item from recommending itself.

The first term in the Eq. (6) is devised to capture hypothesis 1, and the weighted normalization scheme lets the item nodes consider its local graph structure during the propagation. The second term is devised to capture hypothesis 2, ensuring the global consistency between item nodes.
In addition, we propose the third term of Eq. (6) to capture hypothesis 3, which restrain the "common choices" and lead the model to achieve personalized recommendation. In order to verify the effectiveness of this regularization term, we also conduct sensitivity experiments of $\gamma$ in section 5.4, showing the importance of the third regularization term in achieving the personalized recommendation.

\subsection{Model Optimization}
In order to solve Eq. (6), we first introduce a normalized correlation matrix $S$ defined as:
\begin{equation}
S_{ij}^{L_u}=\frac{gW_{ij}+(1-g)W_{ij}^{L_u}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}\sqrt{D_{jj}}}
\end{equation}
Then the Eq. (6) can be written as:

\begin{equation*}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Tilde{R_i}^T \Tilde{R_j} - \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Tilde{R_i}^T \Tilde{R_j} S_{ij}^{L_u}+ \mu \sum_{i=1}^n\| \Tilde{R_i}-R_i\|^2+\gamma \sum_{i=1}^{n}D_{ii} \|\Tilde{R_i}\|^2 \\
\end{equation*}
We set the derivative of Eq. (6) with respective to $\Tilde{R}$ to 0. Then we denote the optimal solution of the above objective function as $\Tilde{R}^{L_u}$ and obtain:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 \Tilde{R}^{L_u}- \Tilde{R}^{L_u}S^{L_u}+ \mu( \Tilde{R}^{L_u}-R^{L_u})+\gamma  \Tilde{R}^{L_u}D=0 \\
 \Tilde{R}^{L_u}-\frac{1}{1+\mu} \Tilde{R}^{L_u}S^{L_u}-\frac{\mu}{1+\mu}R^{L_u}+\frac{1}{1+\mu}\gamma  \Tilde{R}^{L_u}D=0 \\
 \Tilde{R}^{L_u}-\alpha  \Tilde{R}^{L_u}S^{L_u}-\beta R^{L_u}+\alpha \gamma  \Tilde{R}^{L_u}D=0 \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha=\frac{1}{1+\mu}$, $\beta=\frac{\mu}{1+\mu}$. Finally, the closed-form solution can be easily derived:
\begin{equation}
 \Tilde{R}^{L_u} = \beta R^{L_u}[I+\alpha(\gamma D-S^{L_u})]^{-1}
\end{equation}
where $D_{ii}=\sum_{j} S_{ij}^{L_u}$, and $I$ is an identity matrix.
Since we focus on the top-N recommendation task, $\beta$ could be ignored as it is shared by all the items. In the meantime, we set the $\gamma=1$ and $L=D-S$ is the graph Laplacian \cite{gl} of the item graph. Therefore, the Eq. (8) can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
   \Tilde{R}^{L_u} =  R^{L_u}(I+\alpha L^{L_u})^{-1}
\end{equation}
In this way, the missing ratings for all user subsets can be estimated by Eq. (9) with corresponding training matrix and item correlations.

\subsection{An Iterative Solution}

One may wonder whether our proposed method can be learned in an iterative way. To answer the above question, we formulate the iterative algorithm as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item Compute the global item-item similarity with $W_{ij}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}$ \;
\item Cluster users with k-means++ algorithm and compute local item-item similarity $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$: $W_{ij}^{L_u}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}$ \;
\item Compute the graph Laplacian: $L^{L_u}=D-S^{L_u}$, where $S_{ij}^{L_u}=\frac{gW_{ij}+(1-g)W_{ij}^{L_u}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}\sqrt{D_{jj}}}$, and $D_{ii}=\sum_{j} S_{ij}^{L_u}$ \;
\item Iterate $\Tilde{R}^{L_u}(t+1)= R^{L_u}-\alpha \Tilde{R}^{L_u}(t) L^{L_u}$ until convergence.
\end{itemize}

To show the convergence of our iterative algorithm, we have $\Tilde{R}(t+1) = \Tilde{R}(t)$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Tilde{R}^{L_u}(t+1)= R^{L_u}-\alpha \Tilde{R}^{L_u}(t) L^{L_u} \\
\Tilde{R}^{{L_u}^{*}} + \alpha  \Tilde{R}^{{L_u}^{*}} L^{L_u} =  R^{L_u}\\
\Tilde{R}^{{L_u}^{*}} (I+\alpha L^{L_u})= R^{L_u} \\
\Tilde{R}^{{L_u}^{*}} = R^{L_u} (I+\alpha L^{L_u})^{-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We show that the optimal solution obtained by the above iterative optimization algorithm is exactly the same as our proposed closed-form solution in Eq. (9). This suggested that our closed-form solution is the optimal solution, and the iterative algorithm would not be necessary.

\subsection{Online Recommendation and Time Complexity Analysis}
In this subsection, we describe how GLIMG works and analyze its time complexity. The overview of GLIMG is given in Algorithm 1. As shown in Algorithm 1, the first step is to compute the global item correlation matrix, whose time complexity is $O(mn^2)$. We then cluster the users into different user subgroups by using k-means++ method, and the time complexity of this step is $O(tkmn)$ where $t$ denotes the number of iterations, and $k$ is the number of clusters. For each subgroup of users, we then compute the local item correlation matrices, and the time complexity is $O(kmn^2)$. After that, we obtain the final item  correlation matrix for each user by combining the global item correlation matrix and the user's corresponding local item correlation matrix, and the time complexity of this step is $O(kn^2)$. At last, we compute the inverse of matrix $(I+\alpha L)$, whose time complexity is $O(kn^3)$.
Furthermore, It is also worth noting that the above processes can be completed \textbf{offline}.

For an active user, we first retrieve her historical ratings and record the ratings she has made. Then the online personalized recommendation can be generated by ranking items according to their user preference scores which are predicted by Eq. (9). In this way, the top-ranked items are recommended to this active user. Since we only need to compute a vector-matrix multiplication online, the online computational complexity is only \textbf{$O(n)$}.
Note that GLIMG is able to generate meaningful recommendations to users who have provided relative small number of ratings (i.e. the cold start users). Even in extreme cases, our proposed algorithm can make recommendations after a completely  new user has made one rating.

\begin{algorithm}[t]
	\SetAlgoLined
	\SetKwInput{offline}{Offline Training}
	\SetKwInput{online}{Online Recommendation}
	\KwIn{Rating matrix $R$, number of clusters $k$, \newline$\mu$ which controls the fitting constraint,\newline $\sigma$ which controls the similarity measurement, \newline $g$ which controls the balance between global and local models }
	\KwOut{Target user's preference scores for items $ \Tilde{R_u}$}
	\offline {for all users}
	Compute the global item correlation matrix with Eq. (2): $W_{ij}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}$\;
	Cluster users with k-means++ algorithm\;
	\For {all clusters $L_u$}{
		Compute the local item correlation matrices with Eq. (2) $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$: $W_{ij}^{L_u}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}$ \;
		Combine the global item correlation matrix and corresponding local item correlation matrix: $S_{ij}^{L_u}=\frac{gW_{ij}+(1-g)W_{ij}^{L_u}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}\sqrt{D_{jj}}}$ \;
		Compute the graph Laplacian
		$L^{L_u}=D-S^{L_u}$ and the inverse matrix $(I+\alpha L^{L_u})^{-1}$, where $D_{ii}=\sum_{j} S_{ij}^{L_u}$

	}

	\online{for the target user u}
	Assign the user to the corresponding local group\;
	Estimate the missing ratings by Eq. (9) with her historical ratings and corresponding item correlations: $ \Tilde{R_u} =  R_{u}(I+\alpha L^{L_u})^{-1} $
	\caption{GLIMG}
\end{algorithm}

\section{Experiments and Analysis}
In this section, we conduct extensive experiments and ablation studies to show the effectiveness of our method.\\
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\textbf{Datasets.} We evaluate our proposed method on two public datasets whose statistics are shown in Table 1. The first dataset, MovieLens-1M \footnote{https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens} is a famous movie dataset, which contains 1M rating information with 6,040 users and 3,706 movies. The second dataset is Yelp. It concludes over 5M ratings with 1,326,101 users and 174,567 items. This dataset is about users' preference on restaurants, released by Yelp as Yelp Challenge Dataset on January 2018 \footnote{https://www.yelp.com/dataset\_challenge}, which is very sparse. Similar to \cite{glslim,trirank}, we create the subset by keeping users and items that have at least 30 ratings. All the ratings range from 1 to 5. Note that GLSVD can only deal with implicit feedback. Therefore, we follow \cite{glsvd} to transform above 2 datasets into implicit data for GLSVD approach, where each entry is marked as 0 or 1 indicating whether the user has rated the item.
\begin{table}[h]
	\centering
	\
	\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
		\hline
		Datasets     & \#User & \#Item & \#Rating  & Density \\ \hline
		MovieLens-1m & 6,040   & 3,706   & 1,000,209 & 4.24\%  \\
		Yelp 2018         & 5,684   & 4,961   & 356,889  & 1.26\%  \\ \hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{ Statistics of datasets}
\end{table}
\\
\textbf{Evaluation methodology.} We split each dataset into 3 parts, the first 80\% are used for training, 10\% are used for validation and the remaining 10
\% are used for testing the performance.
\\We use 4 evaluation measures which have been widely used in top-N evaluation. \textsl {Hit Ratio} (HR) shows that the percentage of users that have at least one correct recommendation \cite{glslim,zhang17}.
HR is defined as
\begin{equation}
HR@N=\frac{\text{Number of hits}}{\text{Number of users}}
\end{equation}
\textsl {Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain} (NDCG) considers the position of correct recommendations \cite{zhang17,sun2020we}. The score is averaged across all the testing users. To be specific, $Z_N$ is a normalizer to guarantee the perfect recommendation score is 1. The relevance score of item at position is denoted as $r_i$, $r_i$=1 if the recommended item is in the test set and 0 otherwise \cite{trirank}.
\begin{equation}
NDCG@N=Z_N\sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{2^ {r_i} -1}{log_2(i+1)}
\end {equation}
Precision measures the percentages of correct recommendations and also averaged across all testing users.
\begin{equation}
\small
Precision@N={\frac{\text{Number of items the user likes among the top-N recommendations} }{|N|}}
\end{equation}
Recall evaluates the percentage of purchased items that are in the recommendation list, averaged across all testing users.
\begin{equation}
\small
Recall@N={\frac{\text{Number of items the user likes among the top-N recommendations} }{\text{Total number of items the user likes}}}
\end{equation}\\

\textbf{Comparison algorithms.}
\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Item Popularity (ItemPop)} Items are ranked by their popularity which is the number of ratings. This method is not personalized and thus can be seen as the baseline \cite{performance2010}.
  \item \textbf{ItemRank} \cite{itemrank} This is a graph-based method for top-N recommendation, which predicts users' preferences according to item-item correlation graphs. We follow the implementation in \cite{trirank}.
  \item \textbf{SLIM} \cite{slim} This is a state-of -the-art for top-N recommendation, which learns item-item aggregation coefficient. We use LibRec library \cite{librec} to conduct the experiments.
  \item \textbf{Recommendation on Dual Graphs (RODG)} \cite{kz2016} This is also a graph-based method for top-N recommendation. This method adopts graph regularization to incorporate user graph and item graph. The source code is available \footnote{https://github.com/sckangz}.
  \item \textbf{BiRank} \cite{birank} BiRank ranks vertices of bipartite (user-item) graphs and generates meaningful recommendations. We follow the implementation in \cite{birank}.
  \item \textbf{GLSVD}\cite{glsvd} As a state-of-the-art global-local model, GLSVD captures the global and local user tastes by a latent space approach. We choose rGLSVD approach as a benchmark and follow the implementation in \cite{glsvd}. The source code is available\footnote{https://github.com/echristakopoulou/glsvd}.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Model Selection.} In order to find the optimal parameters which lead to best performance of each methods, we hence conduct extensive search over the parameter space of each method. For ItemRank, we use the common choice for the value of decay factor $\alpha$ which is 0.85 \cite{itemrank}. For SLIM, the value of the \textsl{$l_1$} and \textsl{$l_2$} regularization parameters we tried are $\lbrace$0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 80$\rbrace$. For RODG, we select the value of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from the following sets \cite{kz2016}: $\{1e^{-6},1e^{-4},1e^{-2}\}$ and $\{1e^{-6},1e^{-5},1e^{-4},1e^{-3},1e^{-2}\}$, respectively. For BiRank, we apply grid search in the following set: $\lbrace$0.001, 0.1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30$\rbrace$ to find the optimal regularization parameters $\gamma$ and $\eta$. As for rGLSVD, the number of clusters $Cls$ is chosen from the following set: $\{3,5,8,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,$ $70,100\}$, and the rank of global model $f^g$ is selected from the following set $\{1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100\}$. In addition, we use CLUTO \cite{cluto} to cluster users for rGLSVD approach.

\subsection{Performance Comparison with Baselines}

\begin{table*}[t]
	\footnotesize
	\begin{adjustwidth}{-0.95in}{0in}
	\centering
	\caption{Comparison with competing methods at rank 10 and 50 (i.e.N).}
	\begin{tabular}{ccccc|cccc}  \hline
	Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ML-1M}                                         & \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Yelp}                                       \\ \hline
	Metric(\%) & NDCG@10        & HR@10          & Precision@10   & Recall@10      & NDCG@10       & HR@10          & Precision@10  & Recall@10     \\ \hline
	ItemPop    & 11.03          & 50.75          & 8.97           & 7.04           & 1.73          & 10.03          & 1.04          & 2.00          \\ \hline
	ItemRank   & 13.79          & 57.99          & 10.79          & 8.97           & 5.09          & 27.66          & 3.08          & 5.87          \\ \hline
	SLIM       & 21.31          & 74.43          & 16.31          & 15.57          & 6.91          & 35.01          & 4.22          & 7.84          \\ \hline
	RODG       & 19.49          & 70.17          & 14.75          & 13.82          & 7.44          & 36.88          & 4.44          & 8.45          \\ \hline
	BiRank     & 17.52          & 67.23          & 13.03          & 12.42          & 6.93          & 34.92          & 4.10          & 7.90          \\ \hline
	GLSVD      & 19.62          & 73.43          & 14.82          & 15.49          & 5.64          & 30.20          & 3.42          & 6.74          \\ \hline
	GLIMG      & \textbf{23.08} & \textbf{78.42} & \textbf{17.08} & \textbf{17.73} & \textbf{7.81} & \textbf{37.37} & \textbf{4.60} & \textbf{8.76} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}

	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{ccccc|cccc}  \\ \hline
	Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ML-1M}                                        & \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Yelp}                                  \\       \hline
	Metric(\%) & NDCG@50        & HR@50          & Precision@50  & Recall@50      & NDCG@50        & HR@50          & Precision@50  & Recall@50      \\ \hline
	ItemPop    & 13.84          & 76.79          & 5.7           & 19.64          & 3.06           & 26.45          & 0.70          & 5.81           \\ \hline
	ItemRank   & 16.85          & 81.34          & 6.66          & 23.21          & 8.92           & 57.43          & 2.03          & 16.92          \\ \hline
	SLIM       & 26.44          & 90.99          & 9.66          & 36.60          & 11.72          & 65.78          & 2.64          & 21.67          \\ \hline
	RODG       & 22.98          & 88.15          & 8.16          & 30.79          & 12.40          & 67.40          & 2.72          & 22.80          \\ \hline
	BiRank     & 21.96          & 88.45          & 7.92          & 30.94          & 11.88          & 66.51          & 2.64          & 22.10          \\ \hline
	GLSVD      & 25.51          & 91.31          & 9.11          & 36.63          & 9.88           & 62.11          & 2.19          & 18.81          \\ \hline
	GLIMG      & \textbf{28.66} & \textbf{93.77} & \textbf{9.90} & \textbf{40.17} & \textbf{13.20} & \textbf{70.27} & \textbf{2.89} & \textbf{24.27}  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}

	\end{adjustwidth}
\end{table*}
Table 2 shows the evaluated scores of competing methods and GLIMG at rank 10 and 50, while Figure 1 and Figure 2 plot the performance when the size of recommendation lists varies from 10 to 50. We first focus on the evaluations on the MovieLens dataset. As shown in Figure 1, all the metrics show the same trend: our method GLIMG achieves the best performance compared to other methods, followed by SLIM, GLSVD, RODG and BiRank. In addition, RODG outperforms BiRank when N is small, as evaluated by all metrics. When N is set to 40-50, the evaluated differences between RODG and BiRank are getting small except NDCG, which shows RODG is able to order the items more accurately than BiRank.
ItemRank is obviously worse than the above approaches.
ItemPop performs worst among the competing methods, which shows that only recommending popular items is not personalized enough to generate meaningful recommendation lists.

\begin{figure*}[!t]\vskip -0.05 in
	\begin{center}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-NDCG]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmmln.eps}\label{fig2:a}}}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-HR]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmmlh.eps}\label{fig2:b}}}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-Precision]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmmlp.eps}\label{fig2:c}}}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-Recall]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmmlr.eps}\label{fig2:d}}}
		\vskip -0.11 in
		\vspace*{8pt}
		\caption{Performance evaluated by different metrics from position 10 to 50 on MovieLens dataset.}
		\label{fig1}
	\end{center}\vskip -0.15 in
\end{figure*}

As for Yelp dataset, GLIMG again outperforms other competing approaches. Followed by RODG, which also significantly outperforms the rest methods.
BiRank and SLIM have a very similar performance evaluated by all metrics except by Recall. Specifically, SLIM slightly exceeds BiRank indicating that although SLIM can generate meaningful recommendations, it is unable to order the items very correctly. The cause of this phenomenon may be due to the missing item relationships that SLIM fails to capture.
Meanwhile, GLSVD and ItemRank performs poorly among the personalized recommendation methods.
ItemPop still achieves the worst performance and thus is omitted in Figure 3 in order to better display the performance of other approaches.

\begin{figure*}[!t]\vskip -0.05 in
	\begin{center}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-NDCG]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmyelpn.eps}\label{fig3:a}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-HR]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmyelph.eps}\label{fig3:b}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-Precision]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmyelpp.eps}\label{fig3:c}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-Recall]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/wsdmyelpr.eps}\label{fig3:d}}}
		\vskip -0.11 in
		\vspace*{8pt}
		\caption{Performance evaluated by different metrics from position 10 to 50 on Yelp dataset.}
		\label{fig2}
	\end{center}\vskip -0.15 in
\end{figure*}

Besides, there are some interesting findings across two datasets. Firstly, we notice that the ItemPop only performs well on the MovieLens dataset, the potential reason probably due to the two different domains of datasets: movies and restaurants, showing that users tend to watch popular movies online but unable to visit the popular restaurants due to the geographical reasons sometimes.
Another interesting finding is that the RODG and BiRank do not always underperform SLIM. For Yelp dataset, BiRank achieves competing performance compared with SLIM while RODG outperform two former methods. We believe that the underlying factor is the data sparsity problem. As shown in Table 1, since the density of Yelp dataset is only 1.26\%, the model-based methods face the difficulties to learn meaningful features from the rating matrix, while the graph-based methods enable to alleviate such problem by exploiting the potential relationships between entities.
In addition, although RODG and BiRank take into account the user and item information simultaneously, our model GLIMG which only exploits the item information, consistently outperforms than other graph-based methods. Overall, the superb performance of GLIMG shows the effectiveness of the proposed hypotheses and local graph models.

\subsection{Effectiveness of Global and Local Models}
Since our model contains the global and local parts, we also conduct extensive experiments on the following methods in order to investigate their impact on the overall recommendation:
\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{GIMG (\underline{G}lobal \underline{I}te\underline{M} \underline{G}raph)} No local models are estimated in this method, GIMG represents the global element of the GLIMG (i.e. $g=0$).
  \item \textbf{LIMG (\underline{L}ocal \underline{I}te\underline{M} \underline{G}raphs)} No global model is estimated in this method, LIMG is denoted as the local element of the GLIMG (i.e. $g=1$).
\end{itemize}

We organize the performance of our proposed models (i.e. GLIMG, GIMG, and LIMG) in Table 3 to verify the effectiveness of global and local models. It is obvious that GLIMG outperforms other two methods on both datasets, as evaluated by all metrics. The comparison strongly illustrates that such combination of global model and multiple local models can improve the recommendation quality without any additional information.

Figure 3 plots the NDCG scores with respect to the balance parameter between the global model and the local models, which validates the effectiveness of local models from another point of view. In particular, GIMG and LIMG, as a special case of GLIMG, their performance are represented at 0 and 1, respectively. It is obvious that Figure 3(a) and 3(b) share the similar pattern. The NDCG scores first steadily increase and then gradually decline, indicating that only by weighing the global and local models reasonably can the quality of the recommendation be improved.

\begin{table*}[!tp]
	\footnotesize
	\begin{adjustwidth}{-0.95in}{0in}
		\centering
		\caption{Comparison with proposed methods at rank 10 and 50.}
		\begin{tabular}{ccccc|cccc}  \hline
			Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ML-1M}                                         & \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Yelp}                                       \\ \hline
			Metric(\%) & NDCG@10        & HR@10          & Precision@10   & Recall@10      & NDCG@10       & HR@10          & Precision@10  & Recall@10     \\ \hline
			GIMG       & 22.27          & 76.26          & 16.84          & 16.55          & 7.62          & 37.21          & 4.51          & 8.51          \\
			LIMG       & 22.34          & 77.50          & 16.44          & 17.37          & 7.35          & 36.48          & 4.42          & 8.28          \\
			GLIMG      & \textbf{23.08} & \textbf{78.42} & \textbf{17.08} & \textbf{17.73} & \textbf{7.81} & \textbf{37.37} & \textbf{4.60} & \textbf{8.76}  \\ \hline
		\end{tabular}

		\centering
		\begin{tabular}{ccccc|cccc}  \\ \hline
			Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ML-1M}                                        & \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Yelp}                                         \\  \hline
			Metric(\%) & NDCG@50        & HR@50          & Precision@50  & Recall@50      & NDCG@50        & HR@50          & Precision@50  & Recall@50      \\ \hline
			GIMG       & 27.29          & 91.81          & 9.79          & 37.64          & 12.79          & 68.66          & 2.82          & 23.37          \\
			LIMG       & 27.96          & 93.69          & 9.50          & 39.62          & 12.50          & 68.34          & 2.78          & 23.16          \\
			GLIMG      & \textbf{28.66} & \textbf{93.77} & \textbf{9.90} & \textbf{40.17} & \textbf{13.20} & \textbf{70.27} & \textbf{2.89} & \textbf{24.27}  \\ \hline
		\end{tabular}

	\end{adjustwidth}
\end{table*}

\begin{figure*}[!t]\vskip -0.05 in
	\begin{center}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-g]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/mlg.eps}\label{fig4:a}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-g]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/yelpg.eps}\label{fig4:b}}}

		\vspace*{8pt}
		\caption{The influence of the weight between the global and local model evaluated by NDCG at rank 50. }
		\label{fig4}
	\end{center}\vskip -0.15 in
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[!t]\vskip -0.05 in
	\begin{center}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-k]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/mlk.eps}\label{fig5:a}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-k]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/yelpk.eps}\label{fig5:b}}}

		\vspace*{8pt}
		\caption{The influence of the number of clusters evaluated by NDCG at rank 50.}
		\label{fig5}
	\end{center}\vskip -0.15 in
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[!h]\vskip -0.05 in
	\begin{center}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-$\sigma$]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig/mlbb.eps}\label{fig6:a}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-$\sigma$]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig/yelpbb.eps}\label{fig6:b}}}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-$\mu$]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig/wsdmmlu.eps}\label{fig6:c}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-$\mu$]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig/wsdmyelpu.eps}\label{fig6:d}}}
		{\subfigure[MovieLens-$\gamma$]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig/wsdmmly.eps}\label{fig6:e}}}
		{\subfigure[Yelp-$\gamma$]
			{\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig/wsdmyelpy.eps}\label{fig6:f}}}\vskip -0.11 in
		\vspace*{8pt}
		\caption{The influence of $\sigma$, $\mu$ and $\gamma$ evaluated by NDCG at rank 50.}
		\label{fig6}
	\end{center}\vskip -0.15 in
\end{figure*}

We also discover the effect of the number of local models for GLIMG and its variant LIMG on both datasets, which is plotted in Figure 4, showing the results from 5 to 50. We can see that LIMG only performs well when the number of clusters is small and with the increase of the number of clusters, the performance evaluated by NDCG decreases in general. It is worth noting that the GLIMG remains very stable with the change of the number of clusters while achieving better performance compared to LIMG. This shows such combination of global item graph and multiple local item graphs will not introduce the instability of local models while improving the quality of recommendation. Another interesting finding is that GLIMG and LIMG are able to achieve impressive performance by constructing few clusters (e.g. 5 clusters), which ensure the computational efficiency of our method.

\subsection{Sensitivity Analysis}

Figure 5 depicts the different values of $\sigma$, $\mu$ and $\gamma$ evaluated by NDCG on dataset MovieLens and Yelp. In this work, $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are chosen from $\lbrace$0,0.1,0.5,1,5,10,50,100$\rbrace$ while $\sigma$ is chosen from $\lbrace$0,0.001,0.01,0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,1$\rbrace$. In general, the performance of GLIMG is not sensitive to the value of $\sigma$ and $\mu$. We first focus on Figure 5(a) and 5(b) which present the effect of $\sigma$. The performance increases slowly when $\sigma$ is small, and the performance begins to decrease after a certain point on MovieLens dataset. Meanwhile, the performance of $\sigma$ remains stable on the Yelp dataset. Figure 5(c) and 5(d) show the influence of $\mu$ evaluated by NDCG. The results highlight that the performance of $\mu$ is very stable on the MovieLens dataset, while there are slightly fluctuations on the Yelp dataset.

As for $\gamma$, when the $\gamma$ is large enough, it is very stable on both datasets and no significant fluctuations can be observed. It is obvious that when $\gamma$ is small, the performance of GLIMG degrades significantly on both datasets, indicating the third regularization term in Eq. (6) is an essential part for our model to achieve personalized recommendation. The sensitivity test of $\gamma$ shows the effectiveness of our proposed hypothesis 3.

\section{CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS}
In this paper, we propose a novel recommendation approach named GLIMG, which aims to construct multiple local item graphs along with a global graph for improving the performance of graph-based models on the top-N recommendation task. In this way, not only local tastes of different user subgroups but also the global taste shared by all the users could be captured. Extensive experimental results on real-world datasets show that GLIMG consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art counterparts. Meanwhile, we also find that the instability of local models will not be introduced in GLIMG, and a small number of clusters (e.g. 5) is enough under our experimental setting. Since similarity measures are extremely important for graph-based recommendation models, in future work, we will explore if there exist better ways to measure the similarity between items. Another direction is to develop more effective user clustering methods for graph-based recommendation approaches. This enables local graph models to capture more accurate local user preferences for top-N recommendation. In addition, the attempt of applying matrix approximation techniques to estimate the inverse of matrix $(I+\alpha L)$ will be studied to reduce the offline time complexity.

\section{ACKNOWLEDGEMENT}
This work was supported in part by the A*STAR-NTU-SUTD Joint Research Grant RGANS1905, and in part by the Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology-Nanyang Technological University (SIMTech-NTU) Joint Laboratory and Collaborative Research Programme on Complex Systems. In addition, we would like to thank anonymous reviews for their valuable suggestions.

\section{Related Works}
There are two categories of works related to our work. In this section, we first study the graph-based recommendation methods and then review the different local models for recommendation.
\subsection{Graph-based recommendation}
Graph structures are widely used in the various recommendation tasks such as POI recommendation \cite{poi}, web pages ranking \cite{pagerank} and product recommendation \cite{itemrank} for their natural modeling the relationship between entities.
A commonly studied case in recommender system is how to generate meaningful recommendation by exploiting limited user feedback. To alleviate such problem, different graph models are proposed to improve the performance of recommender systems. For example, Gu et al. propose GWNMF \cite{GWNMF}, a graph regularized nonnegative matrix factorization model, which constructs user and item graph, encoding the graph structure information or content information to regularize the latent factor model. Kang et al. \cite{kz2016} propose to preserve affinity and structure information about rating matrix by constructing both user and item graphs. He et al. treat recommendation task as a vertex ranking problem. They propose BiRank \cite{birank} to model users and items as a user-item bipartite graph, which takes into account both the graph structure and the prior knowledge. TriRank \cite{trirank} allows additional information to be incorporated, which exploits review information and models the user-item-aspect as a tripartite graph. In our work, we extend the traditional item graph model by combining the global and local item correlations while taking into account the structural smoothness, which has not been studied before.

\subsection{Local models for recommendation}
Local models have been shown to achieve impressive performance in recommender systems \cite{focuslearning, LLORMA, clusteringitem}. Early works \cite{clusteringitem, scalable} cluster users or items and build multiple local models in order to improve the scalability of recommender systems.

Lee et al. \cite{LCR,LLORMA} assume the rating matrix is locally low-rank. LLORMA \cite{LLORMA} first choose anchor points and identify neighborhoods of each anchor point. A local low-rank latent factor model is estimated for every neighborhood and ratings are predicted by weighting all local models. LCR \cite{LCR} is then proposed to generalize LLORMA to a ranked loss minimization method. Their methods use local low-rank models to generate personalized recommendations, but they have not considered the global behavior of all users.

Christakopoulou and Karypis propose GLSLIM method \cite{glslim} which extends the SLIM model \cite{slim} by combining global and multiple local item-item models. They first use SLIM for estimating an item-item coefficient matrix, then separate the users into subsets and compute local item-item correlation matrix, allowing the user subsets to be updated. Since their method is based on SLIM, they only consider items that have been co-rated and thus fail to capture the transitive relationship between items that have not co-rated information \cite{fism}. A similar work GLSVD \cite{glsvd} is proposed as a latent approach to personalized combine global common aspects and local user subset specific aspects. Different from the above two works, our work is a graph-based approach, which propagates users' preferences to items based on their proximity. Besides, our method do not update the assignment of user subsets due to the unsatisfied efficiency \cite{glslim,glsvd} while our method outperforms competing top-N recommendation methods.

\section{Recommendation on Item Graph}
\subsection{Notation}
Let $G = (P, E) $ be an undirected item graph, where $P$ represents the set of item nodes, and $E$ represents the set of edges. We use $u$ and $p$ to represent the users and items, respectively. Edges carry the relationship strength between items. The relationship between item $i$ and item $j$ is depicted by a correlation score $w_{ij}$. We denote the number of users by $m$ and the number of items by $n$. The rating matrix is denoted by $R$ of size $m \times n$, we use $R_u$ and $R_i$ to represent the observed rating of users and items, respectively. Predicted values are denoted by a \texttt{\char`\~}  over it, for example, the final predicted rating matrix is represented as $ \Tilde{R}$.
\subsection{Item Graph}
Current recommender systems face the data sparsity problem and the performance of most recommendation methods could degrade significantly when there is insufficient rating data. For example, a large amount of labeled rating data is needed for well trained deep learning models on recommendation tasks. The data sparsity problem motivates the semi-supervised learning (SSL) techniques to utilize the unlabeled data and alleviate the sparseness of recommendation datasets \cite{poi}.
Graph-based SSL, as one of SSL techniques, perform label propagation on the affinity graphs, the label information (rating) propagates from labeled data (e.g. items with rating) to unlabeled data (e.g. items without rating) based on their proximity, this scenario is well-suited for the real-world recommender systems \cite{HF}. In graph-based recommendation methods, the entities such as users or items are represented as nodes, and the interactions or similarities between the nodes are encoded by edges.
Inspired by item-item models which work well on top-N recommendation task for their satisfactory performance and high scalability, in this work, we construct item graphs by merging nodes. Specifically, the users' preferences are merged into the corresponding item nodes as shown in Figure 2.1.
\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{mergenodes}
  \caption{Nodes Merging.}
\end{figure}
To construct an item graph, the edges which encodes the proximity information between nodes are necessary to estimate. There are different similarity measurements such as cosine similarity and Pearson correlation coefficient \cite{itemcf}. For example, the cosine similarity between item i and item j, is computed by:
\begin{equation}
cos(p_i,p_j)=\frac{p_i\cdot p_j}{\|p_i\|\|p_j\|}
\end{equation}
where ` $\cdot$ ' represents the vector dot product operation and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the Euclidean norm. However, the similarity score could be negative since the output of the cosine similarity is [-1,1]. To avoid such case, in this work, the correlation between a pair of items $p_i$ and $p_j$ are projected to the range [0,1] and computed by:
\begin{equation}
w_{ij}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is a hyper-parameter, and $cos(p_i, p_j)$ denotes the cosine similarity between item nodes.

\subsection{Rating Smoothness}
Users usually tend to give similar ratings on similar items. To capture the above assumption and keep the predicting scores be smooth enough with respect to the intrinsic structure of the item nodes \cite{itemgraph,lgc}, the graph regularization is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} W_{ij}\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $ \Tilde{R_i}$ and $ \Tilde{R_j}$ represent the final users' preference scores which need to be learned by the model. $\Tilde{R_i}$ is a vector whose dimension is $m$ , representing the predicted ratings of all users to item $i$. $W_{ij}=[w_{ij}]$ represents the all edge weight of the item graph, calculated by Eq. (2.2). $D_{ii}=\sum_{j} W_{ij}$ is a diagonal matrix which encodes the degree of nodes for normalization.

\subsection{Hard Constraint}
In order to keep the observed ratings unchanged while assign similar predicting scores to similar items, a hard constraint is applied to the Eq. (2.3) and formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \ &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} W_{ij}\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 \\
s.t. \ &\Tilde{R_i}(rated) = R_i\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Tilde{R_i}(rated)$ means the observed rated scores of the predicted item vector.

\subsection{Soft Constraint}
To solve a hard constraint is usually computational inefficient \cite{itemgraph}, in this work, we change the hard constraints in Eq. (2.4) to a soft one through introducing a regularization term.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \ &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} W_{ij}\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 +\mu \sum_{i=1}^n\| \Tilde{R_i}-R_i\|^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ denotes the weight of regularization term.

\section{The GLIMG approach}
\subsection{Global and Local Item Graphs (GLIMG)}
In this work, we argue that a single global item graph shared by all users can not accurately capture the diverse tastes between different user subgroups. We tackle the above problem by constructing multiple local items graphs along with a global item graph, in this way, our model GLIMG simultaneously captures the global and local user tastes.

To be specific, we first assign all users into $k$ different subgroups using clustering algorithms. In this work, we use a popular clustering approach K-means++ algorithm in the experiments and it is conceivable that more adaptive clustering algorithms can lead the model to achieve better performance. Similar to GLSLIM \cite{glslim}, we then split the user-item rating matrix $R$ into $k$ training matrices as user subgroups which are denoted as $R^{L_u}$, $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$.
Each training matrix contains the corresponding users' rating information only, for users do not belong to this subgroup, the corresponding entries will be empty. We then estimate a local item correlation matrix $W^{L_u}$ $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$ for every user subgroup in order to combine the global and local item correlations.

To better model the item graphs and achieve personalized recommendation, we follow the traditional assumptions and design our model based on the following hypotheses.

\textbf{Hypothesis 1. Item Smoothness} The preference scores of the two items should be similar if the items are among similar graph structures.

\textbf{Hypothesis 2. Item Fitting} The item preference scores should not change too much from the initial assignment. For example, if an item receives higher rating scores than others, it is likely to receive more high ratings in the future.

\textbf{Hypothesis 3. Item Confidence } If an item is highly correlated to many other items, the confidence of this item should be small and in order to generate personalized recommendation for users, this item's preference scores should be suppressed.

To capture the above three hypotheses, we devise the following graph regularization function:

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} ( g W_{ij}+ (1-g)  W_{ij}^{L_u})\| \frac{ \Tilde{R_i}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}}-\frac{ \Tilde{R_j}}{\sqrt{D_{jj}}}\|^2 + \mu \sum_{i=1}^n\| \Tilde{R_i}-R_i\|^2+ \gamma \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\sqrt{D_{ii}} \Tilde{R_i}\|^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where hyper-parameter $g$ balances the effect of global and local item correlation, the regularization parameters $\mu$ and $\gamma$ control the weight among these three terms. We also constrain $W_{ii}=0$ and $W_{ii}^{L_u}=0$ to prohibit the item from recommending itself.

The first term in the Eq. (2.6) is devised to capture hypothesis 1, the weighted normalization scheme lets the item nodes consider its local graph structure during the propagation. The second term is devised to capture hypothesis 2, ensuring the global consistency between item nodes.

In addition, we propose the third term of Eq. (2.6) to capture hypothesis 3, which restrain the "common choices" and lead the model to achieve personalized recommendation. In order to verify the effectiveness of this regularization term, we also conduct sensitivity experiments of $\gamma$ in section , showing the importance of the third regularization term in achieving the personalized recommendation.

\subsection{Model Optimization}
In order to solve Eq. (2.6), we first introduce a normalized correlation matrix $S$ defined as:
\begin{equation}
S_{ij}=\frac{gW_{ij}+(1-g)W_{ij}^{L_u}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}\sqrt{D_{jj}}}
\end{equation}
Then the Eq. (2.6) can be written as:

\begin{equation*}
\min_{\Tilde{R}} \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Tilde{R_i}^T \Tilde{R_j} - \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\Tilde{R_i}^T \Tilde{R_j} S_{ij}+ \mu \sum_{i=1}^n\| \Tilde{R_i}-R_i\|^2+\gamma \sum_{i=1}^{n}\sqrt{D_{ii}} \|\Tilde{R_i}\|^2 \\
\end{equation*}
We set the derivative of Eq. (2.6) with respective to $\Tilde{R}$ to 0, and obtain:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 \Tilde{R}- \Tilde{R}S+ \mu( \Tilde{R}-R)+\gamma  D\Tilde{R}=0 \\
 \Tilde{R}-\frac{1}{1+\mu} \Tilde{R}S-\frac{\mu}{1+\mu}R+\frac{1}{1+\mu}\gamma  D\Tilde{R}=0 \\
 \Tilde{R}-\alpha  \Tilde{R}S-\beta R+\alpha \gamma  D\Tilde{R}=0 \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha=\frac{1}{1+\mu}$, $\beta=\frac{\mu}{1+\mu}$. Finally, the closed-form solution can be easily derived:
\begin{equation}
 \Tilde{R} = \beta R[I+\alpha(\gamma D-S)]^{-1}
\end{equation}
where $I$ is an identity matrix.

Since we focus on the top-N recommendation task, $\beta$ could be ignored as it is shared by all the items. In the meantime, we set the $\gamma=1$ and $L=D-S$ is the graph Laplacian \cite{gl} of the item graph. Therefore, the Eq. (2.8) can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
   \Tilde{R} =  R(I+\alpha L)^{-1}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Online Recommendation and Time Complexity Analysis}
In this section, we describe how GLIMG works and analyze its time complexity. The overview of GLIMG is given in Algorithm 1. As shown in Algorithm 1, the first step is to compute the global item correlation matrix, whose time complexity is $O(mn^2)$. We then cluster the users into different user subgroups by using K-means++ method, and the time complexity of this step is $O(tcmn)$ where $t$ denotes the number of iterations, $c$ is the number of clusters. For each subgroup of users, we  compute the local item correlation matrices, and the time complexity is $O(cmn^2)$. After that, we obtain the final item correlation matrix for each user by combining the global item correlation matrix and the user's corresponding local item correlation matrix, and the time complexity of this step is $o(mn^2)$. At last, we compute the inverse of matrix $(I+\alpha L)$, whose time complexity is $O(mn^3)$. From the above analysis, we can know that the executive time will not be increased dramatically if the number of users and the number of items are increased. Furthermore, It is also worth noting that the above processes can be completed \textbf{offline}.

For an active user, the online personalized recommendation is generated by ranking items according to their user preference scores which are predicted by Eq. (2.9). At last, top-ranked items are recommended to this active user. Since we only need to compute a vector-matrix multiplication online, We can show that the online computational complexity is only $O(n)$. To show the efficiency of our method, the training time of all methods is recorded and presented in Section 5.2. The overview of GLIMG is shown in Algorithm 1.

\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetAlgoLined
\SetKwInput{offline}{Offline Training}
\SetKwInput{online}{Online Recommendation}
\KwIn{Rating matrix $R$, number of clusters $c$, \newline$\mu$ which controls the fitting constraint,\newline $\sigma$ which controls the similarity measurement, \newline $g$ which controls the balance between global and local models }
\KwOut{Users' preference scores for items $ \Tilde{R}$}
\offline {for all users}
 Computing the global item correlation matrix with Eq. (2.2): $W_{ij}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}$\;
 Clustering users with K-means++ algorithm\;
 \For {all clusters $L_u$}{
 Computing the local item correlation matrices with Eq. (2.2) $\forall L_u \in \{1,...,k\}$: $W_{ij}^{L_u}=exp\{-\sigma[1-cos(p_i, p_j)]\}$ \;
 }
 \For{every user}{
 Combining the global item correlation matrix and corresponding user-specific local item correlation matrix: $S_{ij}^{u}=\frac{gW_{ij}+(1-g)W_{ij}^{L_u}}{\sqrt{D_{ii}}\sqrt{D_{jj}}}$ \;
 Computing the graph Laplacian
 $L=D-S$ and the inverse matrix $(I+\alpha L)^{-1}$

 }
\online{for target user u}
 Assigning the user to the corresponding local group\;
 Estimating the corresponding ratings by Eq. (2.9): $ \Tilde{R_u} =  R_{u}(I+\alpha L)^{-1} $
\caption{GLIMG}
\end{algorithm}

\section{Experiments and Analysis}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to show the effectiveness of our method.\\
\textbf{Datasets.} We evaluate our proposed method on two public datasets, whose statistics are shown in Table 2.1. The first dataset, MovieLens-1M \footnote{https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens} is a famous movie dataset, which contains 1M rating information with 6,040 users and 3,706 movies. The second dataset is Yelp. It concludes over 5M ratings with 1,326,101 users and 174,567 items. This dataset is about users' preference on restaurants, released by Yelp as Yelp Challenage Dataset on January 2018 \footnote{https://www.yelp.com/dataset\_challenge}. This dataset is very sparse. Similar to \cite{glslim,trirank}, we create the subset by keeping users and items that have at least 30 ratings. All the ratings range from 1 to 5. Note that GLSVD can only deal with implicit feedback. Therefore, we follow \cite{glsvd} to transform above 2 datasets into implicit data for GLSVD approach, where each entry is marked as 0 or 1 indicating whether the user has rated the item.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Datasets     & \#User & \#Item & \#Rating  & Density \\ \hline
MovieLens-1m & 6,040   & 3,706   & 1,000,209 & 4.24\%  \\ \hline
Yelp 2018         & 5,684   & 4,961   & 356,889  & 1.26\%  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Statistics of datasets}
\end{table}
\\
\textbf{Evaluation methodology.} We split each dataset into 3 parts, the first 80\% are used for training, 10\% are used for validation and the remaining 10
\% are used for testing the performance.
\\We use 4 evaluation measures which have been widely used in top-N evaluation. \textsl {Hit Ratio} (HR) shows that the percentage of users that have at least one correct recommendation \cite{glslim,zhang17}.
HR is defined as
\begin{equation}
HR@N=\frac{\text{Number of hits}}{\text{Number of users}}
\end{equation}
\textsl {Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain} (NDCG) considers the position of correct recommendations \cite{zhang17}. The score is averaged across all the testing users. $Z_N$ is a normalizer to guarantee the perfect recommendation score is 1. The relevance score of item at position is denoted as $r_i$, $r_i$=1 if the recommended item is in the test set and 0 otherwise \cite{trirank}.
\begin{equation}
NDCG@N=Z_N\sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{2^ {r_i} -1}{log_2(i+1)}
\end {equation}
Precision measures the percentages of correct recommendations and also averaged across all testing users.
\begin{equation}
Precision@N={\frac{\text{Number of items the user likes among the top-N recommendations} }{|N|}}
\end{equation}
Recall evaluates the percentage of purchased items that are in the recommendation list, averaged across all testing users.
\begin{equation}
Recall@N={\frac{\text{Number of items the user likes among the top-N recommendations} }{\text{Total number of items the user likes}}}
\end{equation}\\

\textbf{Comparison algorithms.}
\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Item Popularity (ItemPop)} Items are ranked by their popularity which is the number of ratings. This method is not personalized and thus can be seen as the baseline \cite{performance2010}.
  \item \textbf{ItemRank} \cite{itemrank} This is a graph-based method for top-N recommendation, which predicts users' preferences according to item-item correlation graphs. We follow the implementation in \cite{trirank}.
  \item \textbf{SLIM} \cite{slim} This is a state-of -the-art for top-N recommendation, which learns item-item aggregation coefficient. We use LibRec library \cite{librec} to conduct the experiments.
  \item \textbf{Recommendation on Dual Graphs (RODG)} \cite{kz2016} This is also a graph-based method for top-N recommendation. This method adopts graph regularization to incorporate user graph and item graph. The source code is available \footnote{https://github.com/sckangz}.
  \item \textbf{BiRank} \cite{birank} BiRank ranks vertices of bipartite (user-item) graphs and generates meaningful recommendations. We follow the implementation in \cite{birank}.
  \item \textbf{GLSVD}\cite{glsvd} As a state-of-the-art global-local model, GLSVD captures the global and local user tastes by a latent space approach. We choose rGLSVD approach as a benchmark and follow the implementation in \cite{glsvd}. The source code is available\footnote{https://github.com/echristakopoulou/glsvd}.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Model Selection.} In order to find the optimal parameters setting which lead to best performance of each methods, we conduct extensive search over the parameter space of each method. For ItemRank, we use the common choice for the value of decay factor $\alpha$ which is 0.85 \cite{itemrank}. For SLIM, the value of the \textsl{$l_1$} and \textsl{$l_2$} regularization parameters we tried are $\{0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 80\}$. For RODG, we select the value of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from the following sets \cite{kz2016}: $\{1e^{-6},1e^{-4},1e^{-2}\}$ and $\{1e^{-6},1e^{-5},1e^{-4},1e^{-3},1e^{-2}\}$, respectively. For BiRank, we apply grid search in the following set: $\{0.001, 0.1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30\}$ to find the optimal regularization parameters $\gamma$ and $\eta$. As for rGLSVD, the number of clusters $Cls$ is chosen from the following set: $\{3,5,8,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,$ $70,100\}$, and the rank of global model $f^g$ is selected from the following set $\{1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100\}$. We use CLUTO \cite{cluto} to cluster users for rGLSVD approach.

\begin{table*}[t]
\hspace*{-1.2cm}%
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{ML-1M}                 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Yelp}                  \\ \hline
Metric(\%) & NDCG@10 & HR@10 & Precision@10 & Recall@10 & NDCG@10 & HR@10 & Precision@10 & Recall@10 \\ \hline
ItemPop    & 11.03   & 50.75 & 8.97         & 7.04      & 1.73    & 10.03 & 1.04         & 2.00      \\ \hline
ItemRank   & 13.79   & 57.99 & 10.79        & 8.97      & 5.09    & 27.66 & 3.08         & 5.87      \\ \hline
SLIM       & 21.31   & 74.43 & 16.31        & 15.57     & 6.91    & 35.01 & 4.22         & 7.84      \\
\hline
RODG       &19.49    & 70.17  &14.75         &13.82      &7.44     &36.88  &4.44         &8.45       \\
\hline
BiRank     & 17.52   & 67.23 & 13.03        & 12.42     & 6.93    & 34.92 & 4.10         & 7.90      \\ \hline
GLSVD     & 19.62   & 73.43 & 14.82        & 15.49     & 5.64    & 30.20 & 3.42         & 6.74      \\ \hline
GLIMG       &\textbf{23.08}         &\textbf{78.42}       &\textbf{17.08}              &\textbf{17.73}           &\textbf{7.81}         &\textbf{37.37}       &\textbf{4.60}              &\textbf{8.76}           \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\hspace*{-1.2cm}%
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{ML-1M}                 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Yelp}                  \\ \hline
Metric(\%) & NDCG@50 & HR@50 & Precision@50 & Recall@50 & NDCG@50 & HR@50 & Precision@50 & Recall@50 \\ \hline
ItemPop    & 13.84   & 76.79 & 5.7          & 19.64     & 3.06    & 26.45 & 0.70         & 5.81      \\ \hline
ItemRank   & 16.85   & 81.34 & 6.66         & 23.21     & 8.92    & 57.43 & 2.03         & 16.92     \\ \hline
SLIM       & 26.44   & 90.99 & 9.66         & 36.60     & 11.72   & 65.78 & 2.64         & 21.67     \\ \hline
RODG       &22.98    &88.15  &8.16         &30.79      &12.40     &67.40  &2.72         &22.80       \\
\hline
BiRank     & 21.96   & 88.45 & 7.92         & 30.94     & 11.88   & 66.51 & 2.64         & 22.10     \\ \hline
GLSVD     & 25.51   & 91.31 & 9.11         & 36.63     & 9.88   & 62.11 & 2.19         & 18.81     \\ \hline
GLIMG       &\textbf{28.66}         &\textbf{93.77}       &\textbf{9.90}              &\textbf{40.17}           &\textbf{13.20}         &\textbf{70.27}       &\textbf{2.89}              &\textbf{24.27}           \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison with competing methods at rank 10 and 50 (i.e. N).}
\end{table*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[MovieLens-NDCG]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmmln.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[MovieLens-HR]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmmlh.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[MovieLens-Precision]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmmlp.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[MovieLens-recall]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmmlr.eps}
\end{minipage}}

\caption{Performance evaluated by different metrics from position 10 to 50 on MovieLens dataset.}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Yelp-NDCG]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmyelpn.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-HR]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmyelph.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-Precision]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmyelpp.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-recall]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmyelpr.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\caption{Performance evaluated by different metrics from position 10 to 50 on Yelp dataset.}
\label{state}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Performance Comparison with Baselines}
Table 2.2 shows the evaluated scores of competing methods and GLIMG at rank 10 and 50, while Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 plot the performance when the size of recommendation lists varies from 10 to 50. We first focus on the evaluations on the MovieLens dataset. As shown in Figure 2.2, all the metrics show the same trend: our method GLIMG achieves the best performance compared to other methods, followed by SLIM, GLSVD, RODG and BiRank. In addition, RODG outperforms BiRank when N is small, as evaluated by all metrics. When N is set to 40-50, the evaluated differences between RODG and BiRank are getting small, except NDCG, which shows RODG is able to order the items more accurately than BiRank.
ItemRank is obviously worse than the above approaches.
ItemPop performs worst among the competing methods, which shows that only recommending popular items is not personalized enough to generate meaningful recommendation lists.

As for Yelp dataset, GLIMG again outperforms other competing approaches. Followed by RODG, which is also significantly outperforms the rest methods.
BiRank and SLIM have a very similar performance evaluated by all metrics except by Recall where SLIM slightly exceeds BiRank indicating that although SLIM can generate meaningful recommendations, it is unable to order the items very correctly. The cause of this phenomenon may be due to the missing item relationships that SLIM failed to capture.
Meanwhile, GLSVD and ItemRank performs poorly among the personalized recommendation methods.
ItemPop still achieves the worst performance and thus is omitted in Figure 2.3 in order to better display the performance of other approaches.

Besides, there are some interesting findings across two datasets. Firstly, we notice that the ItemPop only performs well on the MovieLens dataset, the potential reason probably due to the two different domains of datasets: movies and restaurants, showing that users tend to watch popular movies online but unable to visit the popular restaurants due to the geographical reasons sometimes.
Another interesting finding is that the RODG and BiRank do not always underperform SLIM. For Yelp dataset, BiRank achieves competing performance compared with SLIM while RODG outperform two former methods. We believe that the underlying factor is the data sparsity problem. As shown in Table 2.1, since the density of Yelp dataset is only 1.26\%, the model-based methods face the difficulties to learn meaningful features from the rating matrix, while the graph-based methods enable to alleviate such problem by exploiting the potential relationships between entities.
In addition, although RODG and BiRank take into account the user and item information simultaneously, our model GLIMG which only exploits the item information, consistently outperforms than other graph-based methods. The superb performance of GLIMG shows the effectiveness of the proposed hypotheses and local graph models.

Table 2.3 displays the training time needed for all methods. It is noteworthy that our method GLIMG not only achieves the best performance, but also takes the least time among personalized methods. All models are trained and tested on a workstation which installs Intel Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 $@$3.2GHz.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|cc|}
\hline
Method   & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Running Time\\ ML-1M (hrs)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Running Time\\ Yelp(hrs)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
ItemPop  & 00:00:50                                                           & 00:00:35                                                         \\ \hline
ItemRank & 26:55:20                                                           & 21:55:34                                                         \\
SLIM     & 00:54:19                                                           & 00:10:22                                                         \\
RODG     & 00:11:48                                                           & 00:12:02                                                         \\
BiRank   & 02:08:26                                                           & 00:56:25                                                         \\
GLSVD    & 00:09:00                                                           & 00:15:31                                                         \\
GLIMG    & \textbf{00:02:34}                                                  & \textbf{00:07:44}                                                \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of the training time.}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Effectiveness of Global and Local Models}
Since our model contains the global and local parts, in order to investigate their impact on the overall recommendation and compare their performance, we also conduct extensive experiments on the following methods:
\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{GIMG (\underline{G}lobal \underline{I}te\underline{M} \underline{G}raph)} No local models are estimated in this method, GIMG represents the global element of the GLIMG ($g=0$).
  \item \textbf{LIMG (\underline{L}ocal \underline{I}te\underline{M} \underline{G}raphs)} No global model is estimated in this method, LIMG is denoted as the local element of the GLIMG ($g=1$).
\end{itemize}

\begin{table*}[t]
\hspace*{-1.2cm}%
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{ML-1M}                 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Yelp}                  \\ \hline
Metric(\%) & NDCG@10 & HR@10 & Precision@10 & Recall@10 & NDCG@10 & HR@10 & Precision@10 & Recall@10 \\ \hline
GIMG    & 22.27   & 76.26 & 16.84         & 16.55      & 7.62    & 37.21 & 4.51         & 8.51      \\ \hline
LIMG   & 22.34   &77.50  &16.44         &17.37       &7.35     &36.48  &4.42          &8.28       \\ \hline
GLIMG       &\textbf{23.08}         &\textbf{78.42}       &\textbf{17.08}              &\textbf{17.73}           &\textbf{7.81}         &\textbf{37.37}       &\textbf{4.60}              &\textbf{8.76}           \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\begin{table*}[t]
\hspace*{-1.2cm}%
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.06\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.12\linewidth}<{\centering}p{0.1\linewidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
Dataset    & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{ML-1M}                 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Yelp}                  \\ \hline
Metric(\%) & NDCG@50 & HR@50 & Precision@50 & Recall@50 & NDCG@50 & HR@50 & Precision@50 & Recall@50 \\ \hline
GIMG    & 27.29   & 91.81 & 9.79         & 37.64      & 12.79    & 68.66 & 2.82         & 23.37      \\ \hline
LIMG   &27.96    &93.69  &9.50         &39.62       &12.50     &68.34  &2.78          &23.16       \\ \hline
GLIMG       &\textbf{28.66}         &\textbf{93.77}       &\textbf{9.90}              &\textbf{40.17}           &\textbf{13.20}         &\textbf{70.27}       &\textbf{2.89}              &\textbf{24.27}           \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison with proposed methods at rank 10 and 50.}
\end{table*}
We organize the performance of our proposed models (GLIMG, GIMG, LIMG) in Table 2.4 to verify the effectiveness of global and local models. It is obvious that GLIMG outperforms other two methods on both datasets, as evaluated by all metrics. The comparison strongly illustrates that such combination of global model and multiple local models can improve the recommendation quality without any additional information.

Figure 2.4 plots the NDCG scores with the changing balance parameter between the global model and the local models, which validates the effectiveness of local models from another point of view. In the meantime, GIMG and LIMG, as a special case of GLIMG, their performance are represented at 0 and 1, respectively. It is obviously that Figure 2.4(a) and 2.4(b) share the similar pattern, the NDCG scores first steadily increase and then gradually decline, indicating that only by weighing the global and local models reasonably can the quality of the recommendation be improved.

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[Yelp-NDCG]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{mlg.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-HR]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{yelpg.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\caption{The influence of the weight between the global and local model evaluated by NDCG at rank 50. }
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[Yelp-NDCG]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{mlk.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-HR]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{yelpk.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\caption{The influence of the number of clusters evaluated by NDCG at rank 50. }
\end{figure*}

 We also discover the effect of the number of local models for GLIMG and its variant LIMG on both datasets in Figure 2.5. The parameter is chosen from the following set: $\{3,5,8,10,15,20,25,30,$ $35,40,45,50,70,100\}$, we only plot the results from 5 to 50 here. We can see that LIMG only performs well when the number of clusters is small and with the increase of the number of clusters, the performance evaluated by NDCG decreases in general.It is worth noting that the GLIMG remains very stable with the change of the number of clusters while achieving better performance compared to LIMG, which shows such combination of global item graph and multiple local item graphs will not introduce the instability of local models while improving the quality of recommendation. Another interesting finding is that GLIMG and LIMG are able to achieve impressive performance by constructing only several clusters (e.g. 5 clusters), which ensure the computational efficiency of our methods.

\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[MovieLens-$\sigma$]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{mlbb.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-$\sigma$]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{yelpbb.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[MovieLens-$\mu$]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmmlu.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-$\mu$]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmyelpu.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[MovieLens-$\gamma$]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmmly.eps}
\end{minipage}}
\subfigure[Yelp-$\gamma$]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{wsdmyelpy.eps}
\end{minipage}}

\caption{The influence of $\sigma$, $\mu$ and $\gamma$ evaluated by NDCG at rank 50. }
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Sensitivity Analysis}
Figure 2.6 depicts the different values of $\sigma$, $\mu$ and $\gamma$ evaluated by NDCG on dataset MovieLens and Yelp. In this work, $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are chosen from $\{0,0.1,0.5,1,5,10,50,100\}$ while $\sigma$ is chosen from $\{0,0.001,0.01,0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,1\}$. In general, the performance of GLIMG is not sensitive to the value of $\sigma$ and $\mu$. We first focus on Figure 2.6 (a) and 2.6 (b) which show the effect of $\sigma$. The performance increases slowly when $\sigma$ is small and the performance begins to decrease after a certain point, while the performance of $\sigma$ remains stable on the Yelp dataset. Figure 2.6 (c) and 2.6 (d) show the influence of $\mu$ evaluated by NDCG. The results highlight that the performance of $\mu$ is very stable on the MovieLens dataset while there are slightly fluctuations on the Yelp dataset.

As for $\gamma$, when the $\gamma$ is large enough, it is very stable on both datasets and no significant fluctuations can be observed. It is obvious that when $\gamma$ is small, the performance of GLIMG degrades significantly on both datasets, indicating the third regularization term in Eq. (2.6) is an essential part for our model to achieve personalized recommendation. The sensitivity test of $\gamma$ shows the effectiveness of our proposed hypothesis 3.

Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)