Book chapter · 2017
Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey
In Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis, pp. 217–235, IGI Global · Published
Summary
Biba et al. (2017) surveyed visual data mining techniques used for collaborative filtering, covering visual data mining taxonomies and tools, the three main kinds of collaborative filtering (memory-based, model-based and hybrid) and visual collaborative filtering systems evaluated on EachMovie, MovieLens and Netflix data. The authors conclude that combining visual data mining techniques with collaborative filtering has led to substantial improvement of the overall systems and can alleviate the shortcomings of traditional collaborative filtering.
Practical implication. Data analysts and users should use visual data mining alongside traditional data mining so that they can visually explore and interpret patterns in recommender data.
- The Problem
- Collaborative filtering recommender systems suffer from sparsity and opacity, and the potential of visual data mining to address these shortcomings had not been surveyed.
- The Methodology
- State-of-the-art literature survey of visual data mining taxonomies and tools, memory-based, model-based and hybrid collaborative filtering, and visual collaborative filtering systems evaluated on EachMovie, MovieLens and Netflix data.
- The Core Finding
- The survey organizes visual data mining techniques, tools and collaborative filtering approaches, and concludes that combining visual data mining with collaborative filtering has led to substantial improvement and can alleviate the shortcomings of traditional collaborative filtering.
- The Citation
- Biba, M., Vajjhala, N. R., & Nishani, L. (2017). Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey. In Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis (pp. 217–235). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012
The summary, key findings, methods, implications and relevance notes on this page are this website’s own description of the chapter, written from the published abstract and text. The official abstract and citation details are given further down.
Key findings
- Finding 1. The survey reports that visual data mining techniques can be grouped into six classes — graph-based, geometric projection, icon-based, pixel-based, hierarchical and hybrid — following Keim’s taxonomy.
- Finding 2. The chapter identifies Clementine, TimeSearcher, ThemeRiver, VizTree and XmdvTool as popular visual data mining tools, describing Clementine as one of the three most popular visual data mining tools currently in use.
- Finding 3. The survey classifies collaborative filtering techniques into three major kinds: memory-based, model-based and hybrid collaborative filtering.
- Finding 4. The chapter notes that memory-based collaborative filtering is easy to implement and performs well on dense datasets but depends on user ratings, deteriorates on sparse data and requires more memory than model-based techniques.
- Finding 5. The survey identifies the key challenges for collaborative filtering recommender systems as managing highly sparse data, scaling to large numbers of users and items, and producing appropriate recommendations quickly, along with the new-user and new-item (cold-start) problems.
- Finding 6. Reviewed visual collaborative filtering approaches include the NEAR (navigating exhibitions, annotations and resources) panel, dependency networks, minimum spanning dendrograms for movie recommendation, and PCA- and CCA-based global and personalized item maps tested on MovieLens and Netflix datasets.
- Finding 7. The authors conclude that combining visual data mining techniques with collaborative filtering has led to substantial improvement of the overall systems and can alleviate the shortcomings of traditional collaborative filtering.
Source: Biba et al. (2017), In Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis, pp. 217–235, IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012
The chapter in detail
What question does this chapter answer?
What visual data mining techniques and tools exist, what are the main collaborative filtering approaches, and how has visual data mining been applied to collaborative filtering recommender systems?
What did the chapter find, in detail?
The chapter surveys visual data mining taxonomies (for example Keim’s six classes: graph-based, geometric projection, icon-based, pixel-based, hierarchical and hybrid), popular tools (Clementine, TimeSearcher, ThemeRiver, VizTree, XmdvTool), and the three main kinds of collaborative filtering (memory-based, model-based and hybrid). Reviewing visual collaborative filtering systems such as NEAR, dependency networks, minimum spanning dendrograms and PCA/CCA item maps tested on MovieLens and Netflix data, it concludes that combining visual data mining with collaborative filtering has led to substantial improvement and can alleviate the shortcomings of traditional collaborative filtering.
Why does it matter?
Visual data mining augments, rather than replaces, traditional data mining by bringing the data analyst into the exploration process through visual interpretation of large datasets. For recommender systems, the authors conclude that visual techniques help make sense of what is happening between users in collaborative filtering systems and address problems such as sparse data, scalability and new users or items.
Methods and data
| Research question | What are the state-of-the-art visual data mining techniques and collaborative filtering approaches, and how are they combined? |
|---|---|
| Design | State-of-the-art literature survey (book chapter). |
| Data | Published visual data mining taxonomies, tools and collaborative filtering studies, including work evaluated on EachMovie, MovieLens and Netflix rating datasets. |
| Methods | Narrative review of visual data mining classifications, tools, memory-based, model-based and hybrid collaborative filtering, and visual collaborative filtering systems. |
| Main result | Combining visual data mining with collaborative filtering has substantially improved overall systems and can alleviate the shortcomings of traditional collaborative filtering. |
| Implication | Visual data mining should be used alongside traditional data mining so analysts and users can visually explore and interpret patterns in recommender data. |
| Citation | Biba et al. (2017) · DOI 10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012 |
Definitions and key terms
- Visual data mining
- The chapter’s definition: visual data mining combines data mining methods and computer-aided, interactive visual techniques to discover novel and interpretable patterns with the help of human perception abilities. — as used in Biba et al. (2017)
- Collaborative filtering
- The chapter’s definition: collaborative filtering allows recommendations to users taking into account how other users have rated items, using a database of user ratings over items. — as used in Biba et al. (2017)
- Recommender systems
- The chapter’s definition: software tools and techniques for suggesting items to users by considering their preferences in an automated fashion. — as used in Biba et al. (2017)
Abstract
This book chapter provides a state-of-the-art survey of visual data mining techniques used for collaborative filtering. The chapter begins with a discussion on various visual data mining techniques along with an analysis of the state-of-the-art visual data mining techniques used by researchers as well as in the industry. Collaborative filtering approaches are presented along with an analysis of the state-of-the-art collaborative filtering approaches currently in use in the industry. Visual data mining can provide benefit to existing data mining techniques by providing the users with visual exploration and interpretation of data. The users can use these visual interpretations for further data mining. This chapter dealt with state-of-the-art visual data mining technologies that are currently in use apart. The chapter also includes the key section of the discussion on the latest trends in visual data mining for collaborative filtering.
Abstract as published in Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis.
Practical implications
- For data analysts, visual data mining augments rather than replaces traditional data mining, bringing the analyst into the exploration process through visual interpretation of large datasets.
- Researchers working on collaborative filtering and recommender system design can use visual techniques to make sense of what is happening between users and to address problems such as sparse data, scalability and new users or items.
- Researchers choosing memory-based collaborative filtering gain an approach that is easy to implement and performs well on dense datasets, but it depends on user ratings, deteriorates on sparse data and requires more memory than model-based techniques.
Drawn from Biba et al. (2017), In Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis, pp. 217–235, IGI Global.
When this research may be relevant
This chapter may be relevant to researchers surveying visual data mining and information visualisation techniques, collaborative filtering and recommender system design, and the combination of visual analytics with recommendation algorithms.
Research topics addressed: visual data mining; collaborative filtering; recommender systems; data visualization; information visualization; data mining; memory-based collaborative filtering; model-based collaborative filtering; hybrid collaborative filtering; content-based filtering; visual analytics; movie recommendation; state-of-the-art survey
How to cite
- APA 7
- Biba, M., Vajjhala, N. R., & Nishani, L. (2017). Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey. In Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis (pp. 217–235). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012
- MLA 9
- Biba, Marenglen, et al. “Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey.” Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis, IGI Global, 2017, pp. 217–35. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012.
- IEEE
- M. Biba, N. R. Vajjhala, and L. Nishani, “Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey,” in Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis. IGI Global, 2017, pp. 217–235, doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012.
BibTeX
@incollection{biba2017visual,
title = {Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey},
author = {Biba, Marenglen and Vajjhala, Narasimha Rao and Nishani, Lediona},
booktitle = {Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis},
pages = {217--235},
year = {2017},
publisher = {IGI Global},
doi = {10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012}
}RIS
TY - CHAP TI - Visual Data Mining for Collaborative Filtering: A State-of-the-Art Survey AU - Biba, Marenglen AU - Vajjhala, Narasimha Rao AU - Nishani, Lediona T2 - Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis PY - 2017 DA - 2017 SP - 217 EP - 235 PB - IGI Global DO - 10.4018/978-1-5225-0489-4.ch012 UR - https://www.narasimharao.net/research/visual-data-mining-collaborative-filtering-survey/ LA - en ER -
Links and files
Related research
Related publications on machine learning and data science applications
Simple correspondence analysis in standard statistical software, applied to 125,087 global terrorism records (1970–2013), related nine attack methods to 13 world regions with two dimensions capturing 94.5% of inertia — demonstrating an accessible method for visualizing open big data.
A recommender built on IBM Watson that mines a user’s Twitter profile and timeline predicted the category of goods and services the user is most likely to consume, and the authors report a strong correlation between consumed categories and tweet content.
Across 92 primary studies (2016–2025), Diffusion Transformers and Gaussian Splatting account for about 36% of studies dated 2024 or later while GAN use has fallen below 3%; training data are demographically skewed and under-documented, and the dominant metrics (PSNR, SSIM, SyncNet) do not measure what deployment requires.
Fine-tuned DINOv2 and EfficientNet-B0 performed best on nine-class DeepWeeds data, but differences among several high-performing models were not consistently statistically significant across random seeds.
On ten years of daily data for Sofia, Berlin and Tokyo, linear regression matched random forest for temperature at a fraction of the run time and clearly outperformed it for humidity (R² 0.940–0.964), while decision trees performed worst.