skip to main content
10.1145/3079628.3079668acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

User Perception of Next-Track Music Recommendations

Published:09 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many of today's music streaming websites and apps provide personalized next-track listening recommendations based on the user's current and past listening behavior. In the research literature, various algorithmic approaches to determine suitable next tracks can be found. However, almost all of them were evaluated in offline experiments using, for example, manually created playlists as a gold standard. In this work, we aim to check the external validity of insights that are obtained through such offline experiments on historical datasets. We conducted an online user study involving 277 subjects in which the participants evaluated the suitability of four different alternatives of continuing a given set of playlists. Our results indicate that manually created playlists can in fact represent a reasonable gold standard, an insight for which no evidence existed in the literature before. Furthermore, our work was able to confirm that considering playlist homogeneity aspects does not only lead to performance improvements in offline experiments -- as indicated by past research -- but also to a better quality perception by users. However, the observations also revealed that user studies of this type can be easily distorted by item familiarity biases, because the participants tend to evaluate continuation alternatives better when they know the track or the artist.

References

  1. Ivana Andjelkovic, Denis Parra, and John O'Donovan. 2016. Moodplay: Interactive Mood-based Music Discovery and Recommendation. In UMAP '16. 275--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Luke Barrington, Reid Oda, and Gert R. G. Lanckriet. 2009. Smarter than Genius? Human Evaluation of Music Recommender Systems. In ISMIR '09. 357--362.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Geoffray Bonnin and Dietmar Jannach. 2013. Evaluating The Quality of Playlists Based on Hand-Crafted Samples. In ISMIR '13. 263--268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Geoffray Bonnin and Dietmar Jannach. 2014. Automated Generation of Music Playlists: Survey and Experiments. ACM Computing Surveys 47, 2 (2014), 26:1-- 26:35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Matthias Braunhofer, Marius Kaminskas, and Francesco Ricci. 2013. Locationaware Music Recommendation. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 2, 1 (2013), 31--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Pei-I Chen, Jen-Yu Liu, and Yi-Hsuan Yang. 2015. Personal Factors in Music Preference and Similarity: User Study on The Role of Personality Traits. In CMMR '15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Susan Craw, Ben Horsburgh, and Stewart Massie. Music Recommenders: User Evaluation Without Real Users'. In IJCAI '15. 1749--1755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Paolo Cremonesi, Franca Garzotto, Sara Negro, Alessandro Papadopoulos, and Roberto Turrin. 2011. Comparative Evaluation of Recommender System Quality. In CHI EA'11. 1927--1932. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Paolo Cremonesi, Franca Garzotto, and Roberto Turrin. 2012. Investigating The Persuasion Potential of Recommender Systems from a Quality Perspective: An Empirical Study. Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 2, 2 (2012), 11:1--11:41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sally Jo. Cunningham, David. Bainbridge, and Annette. Falconer. 2006. 'More of an Art than a Science': Supporting The Creation of Playlists and Mixes. In ISMIR '06. 240--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael D. Ekstrand, F. Maxwell Harper, Martijn C. Willemsen, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2014. User Perception of Differences in Recommender Algorithms. In RecSys '14. 161--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Peter Emerson. 2013. The Original Borda Count and Partial Voting. Social Choice and Welfare 40, 2 (2013), 353--358.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Bruce Ferwerda, Mark Graus, Andreu Vall, Marko Tkalčič, and Markus Schedl. 2016. The Influence of Users' Personality Traits on Satisfaction and Attractiveness of Diversified Recommendation Lists. In EMPIRE '16 Workshop at RecSys '16. 43-- 47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Florent Garcin, Boi Faltings, Olivier Donatsch, Ayar Alazzawi, Christophe Bruttin, and Amr Huber. 2014. Offline and Online Evaluation of News Recommender Systems at swissinfo.ch. In RecSys '14. 169--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Carlos A. Gomez-Uribe and Neil Hunt. 2015. The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 6, 4 (2015), 13:1--13:19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Derek L. Hansen and Jennifer Golbeck. 2009. Mixing It Up: Recommending Collections of Items. In CHI '09. 1217--1226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Negar Hariri, Bamshad Mobasher, and Robin Burke. 2012. Context-Aware Music Recommendation Based on Latent Topic Sequential Paterns. In RecSys '12. 131-- 138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Xiao Hu, J. Stephen Downie, and Andreas F. Ehmann. 2009. Lyric Text Mining in Music Mood Classification. In ISMIR '09. 411--416.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dietmar Jannach and Kolja Hegelich. 2009. A Case Study on The Effectiveness of Recommendations in The Mobile Internet. In RecSys '09. 205--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Dietmar Jannach, Iman Kamehkhosh, and Geoffray Bonnin. 2014. Analyzing The Characteristics of Shared Playlists for Music Recommendation. In RSWeb '14 Workhop at RecSys '14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Dietmar Jannach, Iman Kamehkhosh, and Geoffray Bonnin. 2016. Biases in Automated Music Playlist Generation: A Comparison of Next-Track Recommending Techniques. In UMAP '16. 281--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dietmar Jannach, Iman Kamehkhosh, and Lukas Lerche. 2017. Leveraging MultiDimensional User Models for Personalized Next-Track Music Recommendation. In SAC '17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Dietmar Jannach, Lukas Lerche, and Michael Jugovac. 2015. Item familiarity as a possible confounding factor in user-centric recommender systems evaluation. i-com Journal for Interactive Media 14, 1 (2015), 29--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dietmar Jannach, Lukas Lerche, and Iman Kamehkhosh. 2015. Beyond "Hitting The Hits": Generating Coherent Music Playlist Continuations with The Right Tracks. In RecSys '15. 187--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Dietmar Jannach, Markus Zanker, Mouzhi Ge, and Marian Gröning. 2012. Rec-ommender Systems in Computer Science and Information Systems--A Landscape of Research. In EC-Web '12. 76--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Evan Kirshenbaum, George Forman, and Michael Dugan. 2012. A Live Comparison of Methods for Personalized Article Recommendation at Forbes.com. In ECML/PKDD '12. 51--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Bart P. Knijnenburg, Martijn C. Willemsen, Zeno Gantner, Hakan Soncu, and Chris Newell. 2012. Explaining The User Experience of Recommender Systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4--5 (2012), 441--504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jin Ha Lee and Rachel Price. 2016. User experience with commercial music services: An empirical exploration. Journal of The Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 4 (2016), 800--811. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Brian McFee and Gert R. G. Lanckriet. 2011. The Natural Language of Playlists. In ISMIR '11. 537--542.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Brian McFee and Gert R. G. Lanckriet. 2012. Hypergraph Models of Playlist Dialects. In ISMIR '12. 343--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Joshua L Moore, Shuo Chen, Thorsten Joachims, and Douglas Turnbull. 2012. Learning to Embed Songs and Tags for Playlist Prediction. In ISMIR '12. 349--354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Melissa Onori, Alessandro Micarelli, and Giuseppe Sansonetti. 2016. A Comparative Analysis of Personality-Based Music Recommender Systems. In EMPIRE '16 Workshop at RecSys '16. 55--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. John C. Platt, Christopher J. C. Burges, Steven Swenson, Christopher Weare, and Alice Zheng. 2001. Learning a Gaussian Process Prior for Automatically Generating Music Playlists. In NIPS '11. 1425--1432. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. George Popescu and Pearl Pu. 2012. What's The Best Music You Have?: Designing Music Recommendation for Group Enjoyment in Groupfun. In CHI EA '12. 1673-- 1678. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Pearl Pu, Li Chen, and Rong Hu. 2011. A User-centric Evaluation Framework for Recommender Systems. In RecSys '11. 157--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2009. BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback. In UAI '09. 452--461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Marco Rossetti, Fabio Stella, and Markus Zanker. 2016. Contrasting Offline and Online Results when Evaluating Recommendation Algorithms. In RecSys '16. 31--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Andy M. Sarroff and Michael Casey. 2012. Modeling and Predicting Song Adjacencies In Commercial Albums. In SMC '12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Malcolm Slaney and William White. 2006. Measuring Playlist Diversity for Recommendation Systems. In AMCMM '06. 77--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Roberto Turrin, Massimo Quadrana, Andrea Condorelli, Roberto Pagano, and Paolo Cremonesi. 2015. 30Music Listening and Playlists Dataset. In Poster Proceedings RecSys '15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Linxing Xiao, Lie Lu, Frank Seide, and Jie Zhou. 2009. Learning a Music Similarity Measure on Automatic Annotations with Application to Playlist Generation. In ICASSP '09. 1885--1888. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. User Perception of Next-Track Music Recommendations

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          UMAP '17: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
          July 2017
          420 pages
          ISBN:9781450346351
          DOI:10.1145/3079628
          • General Chairs:
          • Maria Bielikova,
          • Eelco Herder,
          • Program Chairs:
          • Federica Cena,
          • Michel Desmarais

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 9 July 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          UMAP '17 Paper Acceptance Rate29of80submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate162of633submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader