Enhancing User-Based Collaborative Filtering by Similarity Computation Incorporating Popularity Tendencies

Year 2026, Volume: 15 Issue: 1 , 1 - 12 , 24.03.2026

Emre Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1692030

https://izlik.org/JA89CY93BU

Abstract

This study introduces a hybrid similarity measure for user-based collaborative filtering that combines traditional rating-based similarities with popularity-aware components to enhance neighborhood selection and prediction accuracy. Items are categorized into popular, diverse, and niche groups using a Pareto-based distribution of user ratings. Probabilistic user profiles are created to capture tendencies toward these categories, and similarities are computed using Jensen-Shannon divergence. These category-based similarities are integrated with Pearson correlation through an adjustable α parameter, addressing sparsity challenges while preserving the precision of rating-based profiles. Experiments on three real-world datasets show that optimal performance is achieved at α=0.9, where rating-based similarities act as the primary driver of accurate predictions, while category-based profiles serve as supportive elements to refine neighborhood selection. The hybrid measure demonstrates significant improvements in MAE and RMSE, particularly in the sparsest dataset, where MAE is significantly reduced by 13.39% and RMSE by 17.35% compared to the baseline (α=1). This work highlights the hybrid measure’s ability to address sparsity while improving prediction accuracy. The inclusion of similarities based on user tendencies toward popular items further enhances neighborhood selection, contributing to more accurate and personalized recommendations across diverse data distributions.

Keywords

Collaborative filtering , Hybrid similarity measure , Jensen-Shannon Divergence , Sparsity Mitigation , Popularity-Aware recommendations.

Ethical Statement

The study is complied with research and publication ethics.

References

• Z. Zhao et al., “Recommender systems in the era of large language models (LLMs),” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 6889–6907, 2024.
• S. Shankar et al., “An intelligent recommendation system in e-commerce using ensemble learning,” Multimedia Tools Appl., vol. 83, no. 16, pp. 48521–48537, Jan. 2024.
• A. Klimashevskaia, D. Jannach, M. Elahi, and C. Trattner, “A survey on popularity bias in recommender systems,” User Model. User-Adapt. Interact., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1777–1834, 2024.
• W. Chen, Z. Shen, Y. Pan, K. Tan, and C. Wang, “Applying machine learning algorithm to optimize personalized education recommendation system,” J. Theory Pract. Eng. Sci., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 101–108, 2024.
• R. Sharma, “Genetic algorithm based personalized travel recommendation system,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Intelligent Data Commun. Technol. Internet Things (IDCIoT), 2024, pp. 867–874.
• Y. Koren, S. Rendle, and R. Bell, “Advances in collaborative filtering,” in Recommender Systems Handbook, 2nd ed., F. Ricci, L. Rokach, and B. Shapira, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2021, pp. 91–142.
• K. Hossain, Z. Tasnim, S. Hoque, and M. A. Rahman, “A recommender system for adaptive examination preparation using Pearson correlation collaborative filtering,” Int. J. Autom. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30–43, 2021.
• E. Yalçın, “Effects of neighborhood-based collaborative filtering parameters on their blockbuster bias performances,” Sakarya Univ. J. Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157–168, 2022.
• E. Yalcin and A. Bilge, “Evaluating unfairness of popularity bias in recommender systems: A comprehensive user-centric analysis,” Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 59, no. 6, Art. no. 103100, 2022.
• H. Abdollahpouri, M. Mansoury, R. Burke, and B. Mobasher, “The unfairness of popularity bias in recommendation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13286, 2019.
• E. Yalcin and A. Bilge, “Popularity bias in personality perspective: An analysis of how personality traits expose individuals to the unfair recommendation,” Concurrency Comput. Pract. Exper., vol. 35, no. 9, Art. no. e7647, 2023.
• H. Abdollahpouri, M. Mansoury, R. Burke, B. Mobasher, and E. Malthouse, “User-centered evaluation of popularity bias in recommender systems,” in Proc. 29th ACM Conf. User Model. Adapt. Pers., 2021, pp. 119–129.
• G. Jain, T. Mahara, and K. N. Tripathi, “A survey of similarity measures for collaborative filtering-based recommender system,” in Soft Computing: Theories and Applications. Singapore: Springer, 2020, pp. 343–352.
• P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom, and J. Riedl, “GroupLens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews,” in Proc. ACM Conf. Comput. Supported Coop. Work, 1994, pp. 175–186.
• J. B. D. CarlKadie, Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. Redmond, WA, USA: Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation, 1998.
• B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl, “Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms,” in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. World Wide Web, 2001, pp. 285–295.
• N. F. AL-Bakri and S. H. Hashim, “A modified similarity measure for improving accuracy of user-based collaborative filtering,” Iraqi J. Sci., pp. 934–945, 2018.
• M. Jamali and M. Ester, “Trustwalker: A random walk model for combining trust-based and item-based recommendation,” in Proc. 15th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Mining, 2009, pp. 397–406.
• C. Kaleli, “An entropy-based neighbor selection approach for collaborative filtering,” Knowl.-Based Syst., vol. 56, pp. 273–280, 2014.
• C. Feng, J. Liang, P. Song, and Z. Wang, “A fusion collaborative filtering method for sparse data in recommender systems,” Inf. Sci., vol. 521, pp. 365–379, 2020.
• M. Jamali and M. Ester, “A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks,” in Proc. 4th ACM Conf. Recommender Syst., 2010, pp. 135–142.
• S. Deng, L. Huang, and G. Xu, “Social network-based service recommendation with trust enhancement,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, no. 18, pp. 8075–8084, 2014.
• X. Shen, H. Long, and C. Ma, “Incorporating trust relationships in collaborative filtering recommender system,” in Proc. IEEE/ACIS 16th Int. Conf. Software Eng., Artif. Intell., Netw. Parallel/Distrib. Comput., 2015, pp. 1–8.
• Y. Guo and J. B. Joshi, “Topic-based personalized recommendation for collaborative tagging system,” in Proc. 21st ACM Conf. Hypertext Hypermedia, 2010, pp. 61–66.
• X. Qian, H. Feng, G. Zhao, and T. Mei, “Personalized recommendation combining user interest and social circle,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1763–1777, 2013.
• Z. Ren, S. Liang, P. Li, S. Wang, and M. de Rijke, “Social collaborative viewpoint regression with explainable recommendations,” in Proc. 10th ACM Int. Conf. Web Search Data Mining, 2017, pp. 485–494.
• R. Sanders, “The Pareto principle: Its use and abuse,” J. Serv. Marketing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 37–40, 1987.
• M. L. Menéndez, J. A. Pardo, L. Pardo, and M. C. Pardo, “The Jensen–Shannon divergence,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 334, no. 2, pp. 307–318, 1997.
• L. Candillier, F. Meyer, and M. Boullé, “Comparing state-of-the-art collaborative filtering systems,” in Proc. MLDM Pattern Recognit., Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp. 548–562.
• T. T. Wong, “Performance evaluation of classification algorithms by k-fold and leave-one-out cross validation,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2839–2846, 2015.
• M. Gulsoy, E. Yalcin, Y. Tacli, and A. Bilge, “DUoR: Dynamic user-oriented re-ranking calibration strategy for popularity bias treatment of recommendation algorithms,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 203, p. 103578, 2025.