 three datasets as illustration. From the figure, we can see that the optimal numbers of topics and latent factors are varied across different datasets. In general, more latent factors usually lead to better performance, while the optimal number of latent topics is dependent on the reviews of different datasets. This also reveals that setting \#factors and \#topics to be the same may not be optimal.

Model Comparison (RQ2) {#sec:comp}
----------------------

We show the performance comparisons of our ALFM with all the baseline methods in Table \[tab:comp\], where the best prediction result on each dataset is in bold. For fair comparison, we set the number of latent factors ($f$) and the number of latent topics ($K$) to be the same as $f=K=5$. Notice that our model could obtain better performance when setting $f$ and $K$ differently. Still, ALFM achieves the best results on 18 out of the 19 datasets. Compared with BMF, which only uses ratings, we achieve much better prediction performance (16.49% relative improvement on average). More importantly, our model outperforms CTR and RMR with large margins - 6.28% and 8.18% relative improvements on average, respectively. Compared to the recently proposed RBLT and TransNet, ALFM can still achieve 3.37% and 4.26% relative improvement on average respectively with significance testing. It is worth mentioning that HFT achieves better performance than RMR and comparable performance with recent RBLT, because we added bias terms to the original HFT in [@mcauley2013hidden]. TransNet applies neural networks, which has exhibited strong capabilities on representation learning, in reviews to learn users’ preferences and items’ characteristics for rating prediction. However, it may suffer from (1) noisy information in reviews, which would deteriorate the performance; and (2) errors introduced when generating fake reviews for rating prediction, which will also cause bias in the final performance. Compared to those baselines, the advantage of ALFM is that it models users’ preferences on different aspects; and more importantly, it captures a user’s specific attention on each aspect of a targeted item. The substantial improvement of ALFM over those baselines demonstrates the benefits of modeling users’ specific preferences on each aspect of different items.

Cold-Start Setting (RQ3) {#sec:coldstart}
------------------------

As shown in Table \[tab:dataset\], the datasets are usually very sparse in practical systems
three datasets as illustration. From the figure, we can see that the optimal number of subject and latent factors are varied across different datasets. In general, more latent component usually lead to good performance, while the optimal act of latent topics is dependent on the follow-up of different datasets. This also reveals that setting \#factors and \#topics to be the same may not be optimal. 

 Model Comparison (RQ2) { # sec: comprehensive examination } 
 ---------------------- 

 We show the performance comparisons of our ALFM with all the baseline method acting in Table   \[tab: comp\ ], where the best prediction result on each dataset is in bluff. For fair comparison, we fructify the number of latent agent ($ f$) and the number of latent topics ($ K$) to be the same as $ f = K=5$. Notice that our exemplar could obtain better performance when setting $ f$ and $ K$ differently. Still, ALFM achieves the best results on 18 out of the 19 datasets. Compared with BMF, which only uses ratings, we achieve much better prediction performance (16.49% relative improvement on average). More importantly, our exemplar outperforms CTR and RMR with large margin - 6.28% and 8.18% proportional improvements on average, respectively. Compared to the recently proposed RBLT and TransNet, ALFM can still achieve 3.37% and 4.26% relative improvement on average respectively with significance testing. It is deserving mentioning that HFT achieves better performance than RMR and comparable performance with recent RBLT, because we added bias terms to the original HFT in   [ @mcauley2013hidden ]. TransNet applies neural networks, which has show strong capability on representation learning, in reviews to learn users ’ preference and items ’ characteristics for rating prediction. However, it may digest from (1) noisy information in reviews, which would deteriorate the performance; and (2) error introduced when render fake reviews for evaluation prediction, which will also induce bias in the final performance. Compared to those baseline, the advantage of ALFM is that it models users ’ preference on different aspect; and more importantly, it captures a drug user ’s specific attention on each aspect of a targeted item. The substantial improvement of ALFM over those baseline demonstrates the benefits of model users ’ specific preferences on each aspect of different items. 

 Cold - Start Setting (RQ3) { # sec: coldstart } 
 ------------------------ 

 As show in Table   \[tab: dataset\ ], the datasets are usually very sparse in practical systems
 thgee datasets as illustrauion. From the figorw, we cen see fhat the optimal numbers of topics aid lqtent factors are varied acfoss diffvrent datqsetw. In general, more latent rwctoxs usually lead jo better pesformance, whila ghz optimal number of latent topics is dependrnh on the reviers og difrvrtnt datasets. This also reveals thzt settpng \#factors and \#tppics to be the same may nlt bf optimal.

Model Comoarison (RQ2) {#wec:cjnp}
----------------------

We show thd performance compariskns of our ALFM with all the barelinz methods ib Rabpg \[tab:comp\], whece the best predicbpon resglt on rach dataset ix ii bood. For fair comparisoi, we set the number jf latent fcctors ($f$) and the numbwr of ldtend tooucs ($K$) uo ue fhe sale es $f=K=5$. Notics that our nodel could obtain neenrr performande wheg fetting $f$ and $K$ differently. Still, ALFM dchjeves the best results in 18 out of the 19 datasgts. Comparqd with BMF, which only uses ratings, we achieve muwh bevtdr krcqkxtlon performance (16.49% relative improvement on averwfe). Mpre importantln, our model outpergogmx CTR and RMR dith lcdgs margins - 6.28% and 8.18% rflative imprivements jn aferage, respectively. Comparee to the recvntlt proposed RBLT anb TransNet, AUFM van syill achieve 3.37% and 4.26% relacive ijprovement ln averags respectively wigh xicnificance testing. It is wjrth mentmoniny that HWT avhievef better pfrformance than RMR and fompatable [erformancf with recent RBLT, because we avved bias termx do nhe origiual HFB in [@mcauley2013hiddqn]. TransNet apklies neuxal negworks, whibh has exiibited strogg capabilitiad on represeitation lqarnung, un revidds to learn usrrs’ prefegeuces and utems’ characteristlcs fud rating prediccnob. However, it mau sjffqr fcom (1) gmisy informadion in tevieds, which womld detrriorate the performdnce; and (2) errors introcuged when teneratigg fake reviees for rating predlctioi, whici will alfo cause bias in the final perrormance. Fomiared to thosq bawelines, the cdvantage of ALFM is that it models userw’ preferences on dufferent aspects; anb kore importently, yt capturas a user’s specific qttention on each aspect of a targeted item. Dhe skbstantial improvement of ALFM over those baselines demonstrates the benedits oh iodeling ussrs’ xpecixie pxeferenses li each aspect of cifferent items.

Cold-Start Settinj (RQ3) {#sec:condftart}
------------------------

As shown in Table \[tab:datssdt\], the datasejs are usually very sparse in pracyical systems
three datasets as illustration. From the figure, see the optimal of topics and different In general, more factors usually lead better performance, while the optimal number latent topics is dependent on the reviews of different datasets. This also reveals setting \#factors and \#topics to be the same may not be optimal. Model (RQ2) ---------------------- show performance comparisons of our ALFM with all the baseline methods in Table \[tab:comp\], where the best result on each dataset is in bold. For comparison, we set the of latent factors ($f$) and number latent topics to the as $f=K=5$. Notice our model could obtain better performance when setting $f$ and $K$ differently. Still, ALFM achieves the best on 18 the 19 Compared BMF, only uses ratings, much better prediction performance (16.49% relative More importantly, our model outperforms CTR and RMR large margins 6.28% and 8.18% relative improvements on respectively. Compared to the recently proposed RBLT and ALFM can still achieve 3.37% and 4.26% relative improvement on average respectively with significance testing. worth mentioning that HFT better performance than and performance recent because we bias terms to the original HFT in [@mcauley2013hidden]. TransNet applies neural which has exhibited strong capabilities on representation learning, in reviews users’ and items’ characteristics rating prediction. However, it suffer (1) noisy information in would the errors when fake reviews for rating which will also cause bias the final performance. Compared of ALFM is that it models users’ preferences different aspects; and more importantly, it captures user’s specific attention on each aspect of a targeted item. The substantial of ALFM baselines demonstrates the benefits of modeling users’ specific on each aspect of items. Cold-Start Setting (RQ3) {#sec:coldstart} ------------------------ As shown in \[tab:dataset\], datasets are very sparse in systems
 three datasets as illustratiOn. From the fIgure, We cAn sEe That The oPtimal numbers oF TopiCs and latent factors are vAried AcROss dIFfErent DatasetS. in GENerAl, MoRe lAtENt FactoRs uSually lEad to betteR peRfOrmance, while THe Optimal numBer Of latent topiCs iS depenDeNt oN The reVieWs of dIffereNT datasEts. This alSo REveals THat settING \#fActoRs and \#topics to be thE SaME may not be optimAl.

ModeL COMpARIsoN (RQ2) {#Sec:comp}
----------------------

We sHoW the pERformanCE cOMPAriSOns of our ALFM wIth all the baSEliNe methOdS in tAble \[taB:comp\], WhERe tHe best prediCtioN result on Each daTAset is iN Bold. For Fair coMpaRisOn, we SEt ThE nuMbER of LAtEnt FActOrs ($f$) and tHe NuMber oF latENT TOpicS ($K$) tO be tHe samE as $f=K=5$. Notice thAt oUr moDEl cOuld oBtain BettEr PerfoRmance When sEtTing $f$ and $K$ differEntlY. Still, ALFm acHiEveS tHe besT ResultS on 18 Out Of the 19 daTasets. COMpaReD WITh bMF, which only uses raTiNGS, wE achieve Much beTTeR pREdiction PeRfoRmanCE (16.49% RelatIve iMPrOvement oN averaGE). MOrE importAnTly, our MoDel OutPerfoRMs CTr and RMr with larGe marGIns - 6.28% and 8.18% relative IMprovements on AVeRAGe, REspeCtiVely. CompareD to tHE recEntlY PrOpoSEd RBLt and TRaNSNET, ALFM can still achievE 3.37% aNd 4.26% relaTive iMprovement on aVerage respECTIvely witH sigNIfICance testing. It Is worTh mentioniNG that HFT AchieVes betteR performaNCE than RMR And ComParAblE PErFormance with rECEnt RbLt, becausE we Added biAs tErmS to The OrIginal HFT In [@mcauleY2013hIdDeN]. TRanSNet aPPlies neuRaL neTwOrkS, whicH Has exhIbiteD strOnG cAPabIlities ON rEPReseNtAtIon lEarNiNg, in rEvieWS to Learn usErs’ preferEncES and ItEmS’ characTeristics for rAtIng predictIoN. HoWever, iT MAy suffer From (1) noisy information in rEViews, whIch Would DeteRiorate thE peRformaNce; ANd (2) erroRs intrOduceD wHen GENeratING fAke ReViews for raTINg pRedicTiOn, whIch will Also cause bias in the FInaL performance. COmpAred TO ThOse BAsELinEs, THe aDVAntage of ALFM is tHat it modelS uSErS’ preferencES on DiFferent Aspects; And moRE importAntly, it caPtures a usEr’S speCIFic Attention oN each aspEct of a tarGEted iTEm. the suBstAntial ImProVemenT of ALFm OveR thosE baselInEs demoNstraTeS the beneFits of modeling users’ specIfic prEfereNceS on each asPecT Of dIfferent iTems.

cold-Start SEttIng (rQ3) {#sec:ColDStart}
------------------------

as shOWn In TABle \[taB:datASet\], the datASeTs aRE UsUally very spARSE in PractIcaL SystemS
 three datasets as illustr ation. Fro m the  fi gur e,  wecansee that the o p tima l numbers of topics an d lat en t  fac t or s are  varied ac r o ssdi ff ere nt da taset s.In gene ral, morelat en t factors us u al ly lead to  be tter perform anc e, whi le  th e  opti mal  numb er ofl atenttopics is  d e penden t  on the r ev iews  of different dat a se t s. This also r eveals  t h at s ett ing  \#factors  a nd \# t opics t o  b e t hes ame may not b e optimal.Mod el Com pa ris o n (RQ2 ) {#s ec : com p}
-------- ---- --------- -

Wes how the perform ance c omp ari sons of  o urAL F M w i th  al l  th e baseli ne  m ethod s in T a b le \ [ta b:co mp\],  where the be stpred i cti on re sulton e ac h dat aset i s inbo ld. For fair co mpar ison, weset  t henu mbero f late ntfac tors ($ f$) and the  n u m b er  of latent topics($ K $ )to be th e same as  $ f =K=5$. N ot ice  tha t our m odel co uld obta in bet t er  p erforma nc e when  s ett ing  $f$a nd $ K$ dif ferently . Sti l l, ALFM achiev e s the best re s ul t s  o n  18out  of the 19data s ets.  Com p ar edw ith B MF, w hi c ho nly uses ratings, w eachiev e muc h better pred iction per f o r mance (1 6.49 %  r e lative improve menton average ) . More i mport antly, o ur modelo u tperform s C TRand  RM R wi th large marg i n s -6. 28% and  8. 18% rel ati veimp rov em ents on a verage,re sp ec ti vel y. Co m pared to  t here cen tly p r oposed  RBLT  and  T ra n sNe t, ALFM ca n stil lac hiev e 3 .3 7% an d 4. 2 6%relativ e improve men t  onav er age res pectively wit hsignifican ce  te sting. I t is wor th mentioning that HFTa chieves  be tterperf ormance t han  RMR a ndc ompara ble pe rform an cew i th re c e nt  RB LT , becausew e  ad ded b ia s te rms tothe original HFT i n  [@ mcauley2013hi dde n].T r an sNe t  a p pli es neu r a l networks, whi ch has exh ib i te d strong c a pab il ities o n repre senta t ion lea rning, in  reviewsto  lea r n  us ers’ prefe rences a nd items’ chara c te risti csfor ra ti ngpredi ction. How ever,  it ma ysuffer  from  ( 1) noisy  information in reviews , whic h wou lddeteriora tet heperforman ce;and (2) er ror s i ntrod uce d  when  gen e ra tin g  fake  rev i ews for r a ti ngp r ed iction, whi c h wil l als o c a use bi as i n the final perfo r mance. Compare d to t hos e b a seli ne s, the advanta geof A LFM is t ha t it models  users’pr e feren ces on  diffe rent as p e ct s ; andmore  im portantly , i tc aptures  a  u s er’s s peci fi c atte ntiono n ea c h  aspect of a tar geted i tem.T hesubst an tial im p rove ment of AL FM over tho se bas elin es de monstra te s theben ef its of mod e ling user s’ sp ecificpr efer enc es oneach a spect  ofdi ffe rent item s . 
C ol d- S tar t Se tting  ( RQ3)  {#sec:co l dstart}--- - ------- -- --- - - ------ 
A s shown in T abl e \[t a b :dataset\] ,  the da t asets  are u sually  very s p ars ein prac tic a l  systems
 three_datasets as_illustration. From the figure,_we can_see_that the_optimal_numbers of topics_and latent factors_are varied across different_datasets. In general,_more_latent factors usually lead to better performance, while the optimal number of latent topics_is_dependent on_the_reviews_of different datasets. This also_reveals that setting \#factors and_\#topics to_be the same may not be optimal.

Model Comparison_(RQ2)_{#sec:comp}
----------------------

We show the_performance comparisons of our ALFM with all the baseline_methods in Table \[tab:comp\], where the best_prediction result on_each_dataset_is in bold. For_fair comparison, we set the number_of latent factors ($f$) and the_number of latent topics ($K$) to be_the same as $f=K=5$. Notice that_our model could obtain better_performance when_setting $f$ and $K$ differently._Still, ALFM achieves_the best_results on 18_out of the 19 datasets. Compared_with BMF, which_only uses ratings, we achieve much_better_prediction performance (16.49%_relative_improvement_on average)._More importantly, our_model_outperforms CTR_and_RMR with large margins - 6.28%_and_8.18% relative improvements on average, respectively. Compared_to the recently proposed_RBLT_and TransNet, ALFM can_still achieve 3.37% and 4.26%_relative improvement on average respectively with_significance testing._It is_worth mentioning that HFT achieves better performance than RMR and comparable_performance with recent RBLT, because we_added bias terms to_the original_HFT_in [@mcauley2013hidden]. TransNet applies_neural_networks, which_has exhibited strong capabilities on representation learning,_in reviews_to learn users’ preferences and items’_characteristics for rating prediction._However,_it may suffer from (1) noisy_information in reviews, which would deteriorate_the performance; and (2) errors_introduced_when_generating fake reviews for rating_prediction, which will also cause bias_in the final_performance. Compared to those baselines, the advantage_of_ALFM is that it models users’_preferences_on different aspects; and more importantly,_it_captures_a user’s specific attention on_each aspect of a targeted item._The substantial improvement of ALFM over those baselines demonstrates_the benefits of_modeling users’ specific preferences on_each_aspect_of different items.

Cold-Start Setting (RQ3) {#sec:coldstart}
------------------------

As shown in Table \[tab:dataset\], the_datasets are_usually very sparse_in practical systems