Visualization of Music Suggestions

747 views

Published on

Final presentation for the thesis "visualization of music suggestions". Read the thesis text online at http://soundsuggest.wordpress.com

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
747
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
35
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hi, my name is JorisSchelfaut, I’m an Applied Informatics student and my thesis subject is “Visualization of music suggestions”.
  • In this presentation we will look at recommender systems; these are systems that compute personalized item suggestions based on the user’s interaction with the system, for example by tracking listening history in the case of music recommendation, or ratings given to particular articles in an item catalog. Examples of these systems are Last.fm (music), IMDb (movies), Netflix (movies), Amazon (books), et cetera.
  • Suppose you’re collecting all kinds of geometric objects, and we have a database full of cubes, cones, spheres et cetera. We have a number of users that have rated these objects. Next we also have one or more algorithms to mine suggestions from the data.
  • Algorithms to compute these suggestions are for example content-based approaches that use similarity between items to compute a suggestion. For example, in our database rectangles are fairly similar to cubes. So if someone who has rated a rectangle as “amazing”, the system can then suggest a cube to that particular user.
  • Another approach would be to use similarity between user profiles to classify users into some kind of cluster. For example if two people love cones and pyramids, we’ll assume these users are very similar, i.e., they’re neighbors. If one of these users happens to love cylinders as well, the system might think “aha, the other person might like this as well, let’s recommend this item to that user”. This approach is called collaborative filtering.
  • One problem that is associated with recommender systems is that the suggestions that they compute are often presented in a way that the user doesn’t have an idea how the suggestion was computed. For example our friend Billy the sphere collector receives a recommendation for a parallelepiped, and thinks “Are you kidding me?”, while there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation why this would be an interesting recommendation. Billy looses trust in the recommender system and goes looking elsewhere for cool volumes.
  • To solve this problem of decreased levels of trust and acceptance of recommendations, we could try to explain the reasoning behind the suggestions. What we aim for is some level of insight into the recommendation rationale. This is not a trivial task: the system may to too complex to explain efficiently, or revealing too much information on the algorithm may is not what developers want, as significant research efforts were spent to create it.
  • One way of providing insight is by creating some kind of explanation system. For example the recommendation process can be visualized, which also brings us to the second part of the title of this thesis: “visualization of music suggestions”. A number of such systems exist (see slides).
  • These systems can be evaluated based on a number of “aims” (see table):Transparency: Explain how the system works.Scrutability: Allow users to tell the system is wrong.Trust: Increase users' confidence in the system.Effectiveness: Help users make good decisions.Persuasiveness: Convince users to try or buy.Efficiency: Help users make decisions faster.Satisfaction: Increase the ease of usability or enjoyment.
  • Make a visualization that can explain music suggestions, and that is interactive and enables the user to steer the process (if possible). Evaluation based on previously described aims
  • Now that we have an understanding of the big picture of the problem and context, we will give an overview of the remainder of the presentation.First we will take a closer look at the target audienceNext we will describe the design of the visualizationThen we will present how this was implementedNext we will give an overview of the most important test resultsFinally a conclusion is presented.
  • The target audience is largely based on the so-called savants and enthusiasts (see table on slide). (Note that the last category is the predominant one in the population. I have to say I found that result a bit remarkable based on studies showing a close relationship between music and emotion)
  • In the visualization, the items (or artists in this case) of the user are laid out in a circle.
  • For each pair of items that the user owns, an edge is drawn between the nodes, creating a fully connected sub-graph. By highlighting a user, the corresponding items and edges will be highlighted as well, and vice versa.
  • In an effort to reduce visual clutter and make the visualization more visually pleasing, edge-bundling is applied to the edges so that the edges are drawn to each other.
  • To test the visualization we tried to explain Last.fm’s collaborative-based recommender
  • The visualization was injected into the recommendations page using a chrome browser extension.
  • The extension collects data the Last.fm API and transforms it into a visualization that is built with D3.js, a JavaScript library to create vector graphics in HTML.
  • The development took place in a number of iterations to gradually improve the application. In the first iteration we used a paper prototype. Here we wanted mainly to find out if the visualization had any potential.
  • Selecting a user
  • Visualization of Music Suggestions

    1. 1. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Visualisatie van muziekaanbevelingen Een visueel uitlegsysteem voor collaboratieve filtering Joris SCHELFAUT Promotor: Prof. Dr. Ir. E. Duval, Prof. Dr. K. Verbert, Dr. J. Klerkx Begeleider: Prof. Dr. K. Verbert, Dr. J. Klerkx Academiejaar 2012-2013
    2. 2. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Recommender system • Compute personalized item suggestions based on the user’s interaction with the system – Listening history – Items ratings – Item purchases –… • Last.fm, Netflix, IMDb, Facebook, Amazon, …
    3. 3. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Recommender system • Database (items / users)
    4. 4. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Recommender system • Database • Algorithms
    5. 5. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Recommender system > CBF
    6. 6. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Recommender system > CF
    7. 7. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Black box problem
    8. 8. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Explanation system
    9. 9. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Explanation system > Examples
    10. 10. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Explanation system > evaluation
    11. 11. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Explanation system > evaluation
    12. 12. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Objective • Make a visualization ...that can explain music suggestions • Interactive • Steer the process (if possible) • Evaluation based on previously described aims • Non-professional users (learnability)
    13. 13. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN       Target audience Visualization design Implementation Evaluation results Conclusion Demo
    14. 14. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Target audience
    15. 15. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Visualization design
    16. 16. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Visualization design
    17. 17. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Visualization design
    18. 18. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Implementation > Recommender • Last.fm – Collaborative approach – Lots of data – Active users • Last.fm API – Listening history – Neighbours – Recommendations
    19. 19. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Implementation > Application • Chrome extension – Inject HTML into a webpage
    20. 20. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Implementation > Visualization • D3.js – Lots of existing code – Well documented – Works in almost all modern browsers
    21. 21. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 1
    22. 22. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 1
    23. 23. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 1
    24. 24. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 1 • Feasable? – Insight – Usability • Think aloud / SUS • 5 Test users
    25. 25. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 1 • Feasable? – Yes – Rationale could be discovered • SUS avg: 77
    26. 26. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 2
    27. 27. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 2 • Is the transformation from paper to digital successful? – Insight – Usability • 5 test users • Think aloud / SUS
    28. 28. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 2 • Is the transformation from paper to digital successful? – Yes • Issue: parallel edges are hard to distinguish • SUS avg: 79.5
    29. 29. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 3
    30. 30. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 3 • Real data – Insight: more relevant data • Focus on usability – Option menu • Insight • 5 test users • Think aloud / SUS
    31. 31. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 3 • Negative: – Threshold – Slow loading times – Distinguish between recommendations and owned items – Learning • SUS avg: 76.5
    32. 32. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 4
    33. 33. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 4
    34. 34. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 4 • • • • Where changes positive? Evaluating aims 10 test users Think aloud / SUS
    35. 35. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 4 • Positive: – Tension – Underlining owned items – Keeping current data in local storage • Negative – Learning – Visual clutter when a showing approx. 40+ items
    36. 36. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 4 • SUS avg 80.5
    37. 37. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Evaluation > Iteration 4 • • • • • • • Transparency: yes. Scrutability: no. Trust: sometimes. Effectiveness: sometimes. Persuasiveness: sometimes. Efficiency: yes. Satisfaction: yes.
    38. 38. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Conclusion > Objectives • • • • Varying levels of perceived usefulness SUS score of 80.5 for iteration 4 Learnability can improve Design can be effective for explaining collaborative recommendations • Starting point for further exploration
    39. 39. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Conclusion > Future work • Visualization – – – – Use symmetry in data to retain users instead of artists as nodes Additional interactions (e.g. edges) Clutter reduction through opacity Temporary hide users • Data – Improve data load times through caching • Learnability – Further improve labels and visual clues • Evaluation – Benchmarks, expert-based, heuristic
    40. 40. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Demo • https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/s oundsuggest/jimmblcjmmjjfaklclmohcnabndli dmb?hl=nl&gl=BE • http://www.last.fm/home/recs
    41. 41. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Stats
    42. 42. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Stats
    43. 43. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Stats
    44. 44. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Thank you! • For your attention! • Special thanks to my supervisors Joris and Katrien!
    45. 45. FACULTEIT WETENSCHAPPEN Questions?

    ×