\"Implement matrix factorization to decompose user-item interaction matrices into latent factor representations. Use this skill when the user needs scalable collaborative filtering, latent feature discovery, or dimensionality reduction for recommendation — even if they say 'SVD recommendations', 'latent factors', or 'factorize the rating matrix'.\".
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill --skill algo-rec-mf --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Algo Rec Mf?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/charlieviettq-algo-rec-mf)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: "\"algo-rec-mf\""
description: "\"Implement matrix factorization to decompose user-item interaction matrices into latent factor representations. Use this skill when the user needs scalable collaborative filtering, latent feature discovery, or dimensionality reduction for recommendation — even if they say 'SVD recommendations', 'latent factors', or 'factorize the rating matrix'.\"."
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
---
# Matrix Factorization
## Overview
Matrix factorization decomposes the user-item interaction matrix R (m×n) into two low-rank matrices: U (m×k) and V (n×k), where k << min(m,n). Predicted rating: r̂ᵢⱼ = uᵢ · vⱼ. Trains in O(k × nnz × iterations) where nnz = non-zero entries.
## When to Use
**Trigger conditions:**
- Scaling CF beyond pairwise similarity (millions of users/items)
- Discovering latent factors that explain user-item interactions
- Predicting ratings for unobserved user-item pairs
**When NOT to use:**
- When interaction data is extremely sparse (< 0.1% fill) — insufficient for learning
- When you need real-time updates (retraining is expensive)
## Algorithm
```
IRON LAW: Rank k Controls Bias-Variance Trade-Off
- Too LOW k: underfits, misses nuanced preferences (high bias)
- Too HIGH k: overfits to noise, poor generalization (high variance)
- Typical k: 20-200. Select via cross-validation on held-out ratings.
- Always add regularization (λ) to prevent overfitting.
```
### Phase 1: Input Validation
Load sparse interaction matrix. Split into train/validation/test. Check minimum density.
**Gate:** Train matrix has sufficient entries per user and item.
### Phase 2: Core Algorithm
**ALS (Alternating Least Squares):**
1. Initialize U, V randomly (or with SVD warm-start)
2. Fix V, solve for U: minimize ||R - UV^T||² + λ(||U||² + ||V||²)
3. Fix U, solve for V using same objective
4. Alternate until convergence (RMSE change < ε)
**SGD alternative:** Update u_i, v_j incrementally for each observed rating using gradient descent.
### Phase 3: Verification
Compute RMSE on held-out validation set. Compare against baseline (global mean, user mean).
**Gate:** Validation RMSE significantly below baseline.
### Phase 4: Output
Return top-N predictions per user with predicted scores.
## Output Format
```json
{
"recommendations": [{"user_id": "u1", "items": [{"item_id": "i5", "predicted_rating": 4.3}]}],
"metadata": {"rank_k": 50, "regularization": 0.01, "iterations": 20, "train_rmse": 0.82, "val_rmse": 0.91}
}
```
## Examples
### Sample I/O
**Input:** 3×3 rating matrix R (0 = unobserved), k=1
```
R = [[5, 3, 0],
[4, 0, 2],
[0, 1, 1]]
```
**Expected:** After ALS with k=1 (one latent factor, λ=0.01, 50 iterations), approximate factorization:
```
U ≈ [[2.24], [1.84], [0.53]]
V ≈ [[2.23], [1.06], [0.98]]
R_hat ≈ [[4.99, 2.37, 2.20],
[4.10, 1.95, 1.80],
[1.18, 0.56, 0.52]]
```
Verify: R_hat ≈ R on observed entries (within 0.2 RMSE). U[0] >> U[2] correctly captures user 0's higher ratings.
### Edge Cases
| Input | Expected | Why |
|-------|----------|-----|
| User with 1 rating | Poor predictions for that user | Insufficient data to learn user factors |
| Highly popular item | Predicted near average | Dominant first latent factor captures popularity |
| All ratings = 5 | Trivial factorization | No variance to learn from |
## Gotchas
- **Implicit data needs different loss**: For clicks/views (no explicit ratings), use weighted matrix factorization (Hu et al. 2008) with confidence weighting, not RMSE.
- **Cold start remains**: New users/items have no entries in R. MF can't factorize what doesn't exist. Use side features or hybrid approaches.
- **Negative sampling**: For implicit feedback, you must sample negative examples (unobserved ≠ disliked). Random negative sampling works but biased sampling is better.
- **Initialization matters**: Random initialization can converge to poor local optima. SVD-based warm-start often helps.
- **Bias terms**: Add user bias bᵢ and item bias bⱼ: r̂ᵢⱼ = μ + bᵢ + bⱼ + uᵢ·vⱼ. This captures systematic rating tendencies.
## References
- For ALS vs SGD comparison, see `references/optimization-comparison.md`
- For implicit feedback matrix factorization, see `references/implicit-mf.md`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!