Poolcasting:an intelligent technique tocustomise music programmesfor their audienceClaudio Baccigalupo, IIIA–CSICBellaterr...
Create something intelligentflickr.com/photos/jessicafm/451780564
Nobody understands me!flickr.com/photos/jessicafm/874220566
Let’s search for an actual problemflickr.com/photos/jessicafm/873365059
PartyStrandsflickr.com/photos/jaejongkwak/389531562/
Scope of the researchDevelop an intelligent techniqueto satisfy a group of listenersby delivering a sequence of songsadapt...
Desired propertiesVariety             avoiding repetitionsSmoothness          nice musical transitionsCustomisation       ...
Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations              smoothness3. Individual listening behaviours   ...
Chapter 2.Musical associations froma Web of experiences
State of the artMethods to uncover associated songs:experts-based             not scalablecontent-based             ignore...
Collecting listening habitsflickr.com/photos/itzafineday/302929685
A Web of music data
Playlists                                       Co-occurrence                                          analysis           ...
Playlists                                          Co-occurrence                                             analysis     ...
From playlists to associations                  Initial data set: 993,825 playlists                                       ...
Lists of associated songsTop associated songs with ‘New York, New York’:1. ‘The Waters of March’ (Susannah McCorkle)2. ‘St...
Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations              s(X, Y )3. Individual listening behaviours   cu...
Chapter 3.Individual listeningbehaviours
State of the artMethods to compile user models:explicit             asking for a direct feedbackimplicit             obser...
Listening habits data
From habits to implicit preferences                                          Implicit user                                ...
Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations               s(X, Y )3. Individual listening behaviours    ...
Chapter 4.The poolcastingtechnique
Overview              U1                 U2                   U3    C1                 C2                 C3Poolcasting   ...
Adding one song to the sequence                                        U3                            C3                   ...
A collection of Case BasesBuild one Case Base for each user                       U3                                      ...
The Retrieve processExtract from the Case Bases a                                          U3                             ...
The Reuse processRank the retrieved set according                                       U3                                ...
The Revise processUpdate the implicit preferences                                              U3                         ...
The iterated CBR technique                       U1                             U2                            U3    C1    ...
Aggregating individual preferencesFrom multiple preference degrees p(U, X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1] :X          p(U1 , X, T )     p(U...
Aggregating individual preferencesFrom multiple preference degrees p(U, X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1] :X          p(U1 , X, T )        ...
Avoiding miseryThe satisfaction-weighted aggregation g(X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1]is completed with a measure intended to avoid miser...
Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations3. Individual listening behaviours4. The poolcasting CBR tech...
Chapter 5.Group-customisedWeb radio
What is Poolcasting radio?
A Poolcasting radio channel
Listeners can play music
Listeners can create public channels
Participants contribute with own music
Listeners can interact
Listeners influence the music played
The Poolcasting radio architectureplaylists                                                                  Database     ...
Chapter 6.Experiments andevaluation
Subjective evaluationPoolcasting Web radio as a test platform for one year10 users sharing 24,763 identified songs4,828 pre...
Artificially created profiles                  1.0                                                1.0                  0.8...
A worst-case scenario                    1.0                                                  1.0                    0.8  ...
A worst-case scenario                    1.0                                                  1.0                    0.8  ...
A realistic scenario                  1.0                                                  1.0                  0.8       ...
Scalability                  1.0                                                1.0                  0.8                  ...
Other experiments                            1.0                                                          1.0             ...
Chapter 7.Conclusions
Contributions                      Musical                       Tasks    Playlists                    Associations       ...
Future work               Content             Delivers a sequence of items                                                ...
Publications[ECCBR ’06] Baccigalupo and Plaza. Case-based sequential ordering of songs forplaylist recommendation. In Proc...
Publications[AXMEDIS ‘07] Baccigalupo and Plaza. Poolcasting: a social Web radio architecturefor group customisation. In P...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Poolcasting

480 views
444 views

Published on

Slides for my Ph.D. defense at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, November 2009

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
480
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Poolcasting

  1. 1. Poolcasting:an intelligent technique tocustomise music programmesfor their audienceClaudio Baccigalupo, IIIA–CSICBellaterra, November 6th, 2009
  2. 2. Create something intelligentflickr.com/photos/jessicafm/451780564
  3. 3. Nobody understands me!flickr.com/photos/jessicafm/874220566
  4. 4. Let’s search for an actual problemflickr.com/photos/jessicafm/873365059
  5. 5. PartyStrandsflickr.com/photos/jaejongkwak/389531562/
  6. 6. Scope of the researchDevelop an intelligent techniqueto satisfy a group of listenersby delivering a sequence of songsadapted for the entire audience
  7. 7. Desired propertiesVariety avoiding repetitionsSmoothness nice musical transitionsCustomisation adapted for the audienceFairness satisfactory for everyone
  8. 8. Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations smoothness3. Individual listening behaviours customisation4. The poolcasting CBR technique fairness5. Poolcasting Web radio6. Experiments and evaluation7. Conclusions
  9. 9. Chapter 2.Musical associations froma Web of experiences
  10. 10. State of the artMethods to uncover associated songs:experts-based not scalablecontent-based ignore cultural liaisonssocial-based observing how people use music in their activities
  11. 11. Collecting listening habitsflickr.com/photos/itzafineday/302929685
  12. 12. A Web of music data
  13. 13. Playlists Co-occurrence analysis X YHow often do X and Y occur in the same playlists? Dothey always occur in the same order? Contiguously?
  14. 14. Playlists Co-occurrence analysis X s(X, Y ) Ys(X, Y ) ∈ [0, 1] measures the association between Xand Y based on their co-occurrences in a set of playlists
  15. 15. From playlists to associations Initial data set: 993,825 playlists Fig 2.2 50,000 300,000 songs 40,000 ! ! artistsNumber of playlists Number of playlists 200,000 30,000 20,000 100,000 10,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Alphabetically ordered songs/artists [limited to 1~15] Number of songs [limited to 1~40] After noise removal: 465,438 playlists s(X, Y ) estimated for ~400K songs by ~50K artists
  16. 16. Lists of associated songsTop associated songs with ‘New York, New York’:1. ‘The Waters of March’ (Susannah McCorkle)2. ‘Stardust’ (Glenn Miller)Top associated artists with Frank Sinatra:1. Dean Martin the same result of2. Sammy Davis Jr.
  17. 17. Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations s(X, Y )3. Individual listening behaviours customisation4. The poolcasting CBR technique fairness5. Poolcasting Web radio6. Experiments and evaluation7. Conclusions
  18. 18. Chapter 3.Individual listeningbehaviours
  19. 19. State of the artMethods to compile user models:explicit asking for a direct feedbackimplicit observing behavioural patterns (listening, purchasing, sharing, forwarding, rating a song)
  20. 20. Listening habits data
  21. 21. From habits to implicit preferences Implicit user modeling U i(U, X) Xi(U, X) ∈ [0, 1] estimates the implicit preference of U fora song X combining the observed rating and play count
  22. 22. Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations s(X, Y )3. Individual listening behaviours i(U, X)4. The poolcasting CBR technique fairness5. Poolcasting Web radio6. Experiments and evaluation7. Conclusions
  23. 23. Chapter 4.The poolcastingtechnique
  24. 24. Overview U1 U2 U3 C1 C2 C3Poolcasting Poolcasting Poolcasting H1 H2 H3 ... T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  25. 25. Adding one song to the sequence U3 C3 Poolcasting Case-Based Reasoning H1 H2 T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  26. 26. A collection of Case BasesBuild one Case Base for each user U3 C3 X i(U1 , X) Listening habits 0.5 −0.7 Case Bases U1 ... X i(U2 , X) Individual preferences 1.0 0.2 U2 ... H1 H2 T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  27. 27. The Retrieve processExtract from the Case Bases a U3 C3subset of songs Y that: Listening habits- have not been played recently Case Bases variety Retrieve- maximise the degree s(H2 , Y ) Individual preferences smoothness Musical association H1 H2 T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  28. 28. The Reuse processRank the retrieved set according U3 C3to the aggregated preferences of Listeningall the members of the audience habits Case Bases customisation Retrieve fairness Individual preferences Musical association Reuse H1 H2 H3 T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  29. 29. The Revise processUpdate the implicit preferences U3 C3with the users’ explicit feedback Listening habitsimplicit Case Basesi(U, X) Revise Retrieve preference p(U, X, T ) Individual preferencesexplicite(U, X, T ) Musical association Reuse H1 H2 H3 ... T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  30. 30. The iterated CBR technique U1 U2 U3 C1 C2 C3 Listening Listening Listening habits habits habits Case Bases Case Bases Case Bases Revise Revise ReviseRetrieve Retrieve Retrieve Individual Individual Individual preferences preferences preferences Musical Musical association association Reuse Reuse Reuse H1 H2 H3 ... T =1 T =2 T =3 time
  31. 31. Aggregating individual preferencesFrom multiple preference degrees p(U, X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1] :X p(U1 , X, T ) p(U2 , X, T ) p(U3 , X, T )to an aggregated group-preference g(X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1] :
  32. 32. Aggregating individual preferencesFrom multiple preference degrees p(U, X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1] :X p(U1 , X, T ) p(U2 , X, T ) p(U3 , X, T )to an aggregated group-preference g(X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1] : p(U, X, T )X g(X, T ) = (1 − q(U, T − 1)) · #(UT ) U ∈UT weight averagedefined as a satisfaction-weighted average
  33. 33. Avoiding miseryThe satisfaction-weighted aggregation g(X, T ) ∈ [−1, 1]is completed with a measure intended to avoid misery:assign the minimum degree if any user strongly dislikes X  −1  if ∃U ∈ UT :     p(U, X, T ) < µg(X, T ) =      p(U, X, T )  (1 − q(U, T − 1)) · otherwise. U ∈UT #(UT )This results is an acceptable compromise for the group
  34. 34. Structure of the thesis1. Introduction2. Musical associations3. Individual listening behaviours4. The poolcasting CBR technique5. Poolcasting Web radio6. Experiments and evaluation7. Conclusions
  35. 35. Chapter 5.Group-customisedWeb radio
  36. 36. What is Poolcasting radio?
  37. 37. A Poolcasting radio channel
  38. 38. Listeners can play music
  39. 39. Listeners can create public channels
  40. 40. Participants contribute with own music
  41. 41. Listeners can interact
  42. 42. Listeners influence the music played
  43. 43. The Poolcasting radio architectureplaylists Database MUSIC POOL MUSICAL ASSOCIATIONS CURRENT LISTENERSmetadata PREFERENCES CHANNELS list of list of available listeners shared songs songs knowledge to Stream Generator ratings and schedule play counts audio signal Library Parser Song Scheduler Streaming Server upload song OGG stream (256 Kbps) share library rate songs create channel MP3 stream Web Interface (64 Kbps) I N T E R N E T Media Personal Library Participant Player Participant
  44. 44. Chapter 6.Experiments andevaluation
  45. 45. Subjective evaluationPoolcasting Web radio as a test platform for one year10 users sharing 24,763 identified songs4,828 preferences inferred from personal librariesPositive feedback for the overall experienceVariety requirement was too weakSmootness requirement was too strong
  46. 46. Artificially created profiles 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6Five users with 0.4 0.4random profiles 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Individual Satisfaction preferences degrees
  47. 47. A worst-case scenario 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6Five users with 0.4 0.4random profiles 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Individual Satisfaction preferences degrees 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8Two groups with 0.6 0.6discordant tastes 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
  48. 48. A worst-case scenario 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6Five users with 0.4 0.4random profiles 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Individual Satisfaction preferences degrees 1.0 1.0Two groups with 0.8 0.8discordant tastes 0.6 0.6 (non-weighted 0.4 0.4 aggregation) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
  49. 49. A realistic scenario 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6Five users with 0.4 0.4random profiles 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Individual Satisfaction preferences degrees 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8Five users with 0.6 0.6 concordant 0.4 profiles 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
  50. 50. Scalability 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6Five users with 0.4 0.4random profiles 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Satisfaction degrees 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8Two and twenty 0.6 0.6 users with 0.4random profiles 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
  51. 51. Other experiments 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8Size of the retrieval set 0.6 0.6 (defaults to k = 15 ) 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 Misery threshold 0.6 0.6(defaults to µ = −0.75 ) 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 Initial satisfaction 0.6 0.6 (defaults to ι = 0.4 ) 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 0.0 5 10 15 20 25
  52. 52. Chapter 7.Conclusions
  53. 53. Contributions Musical Tasks Playlists Associations Musical Experience Poolcasting Sequence Web Group Individual Customisation Listening habits Preferences1. Reinterpretation of Case-Based Reasoning2. Mining the Web for valuable experiential data3. Iterated social choice and preference aggregation4. A social Web radio application
  54. 54. Future work Content Delivers a sequence of items … Poolcasting system to satisfy the group of people Audience1. Generalising poolcasting to other domains2. Abstracting the iterated social choice problem3. Uncovering associations for movies, TV shows, …
  55. 55. Publications[ECCBR ’06] Baccigalupo and Plaza. Case-based sequential ordering of songs forplaylist recommendation. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, volume 4106 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 286–300, Springer 2006.[ICCBR ’07] Baccigalupo and Plaza. A case-based song scheduler for groupcustomised radio. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, volume 4626 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 433–448, Springer 2007. Best Application Paper[ECML ‘07] Baccigalupo and Plaza. Mining music social networks for automatingsocial music services. In Workshop Notes of the ECML/PKDD 2007 Workshop onWeb Mining 2.0, pages 123–134, 2007.
  56. 56. Publications[AXMEDIS ‘07] Baccigalupo and Plaza. Poolcasting: a social Web radio architecturefor group customisation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference onAutomated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution,pages 115–112, IEEE Computer Society 2007.[ICMC ‘07] Baccigalupo and Plaza. Sharing and combining listening experience: asocial approach to Web radio. In Proceedings of the 2007 International ComputerMusic Conference, pages 228–231, 2007.[ISMIR ‘08] Baccigalupo, Plaza, and Donaldson. Uncovering affinity of artists tomultiple genres from social behaviour data. In Proceedings of the 8th InternationalConference of Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), pages 275–280, 2008.[ICCBR ‘09] Plaza and Baccigalupo. Principle and praxis in the experience Web: acase study in social music. In Proceedings of the ICCBR 2009 Workshops, pages 55–63, University of Washington Tacoma, 2009.

×