Playlists are a natural delivery method for music recom- mendation and discovery systems. Recommender systems offering playlists must strive to make them relevant and enjoyable. In this paper we survey many current means of generating and evaluating playlists. We present a means of comparing playlists in a reduced dimensional space through the use of aggregated tag clouds and topic models. To evaluate the fitness of this measure, we perform prototypical retrieval tasks on playlists taken from radio station logs gathered from Radio Paradise and Yes.com, using tags from Last.fm with the result showing better than random performance when using the query playlist’s station as ground truth, while fail- ing to do so when using time of day as ground truth. We then discuss possible applications for this measurement technique as well as ways it might be improved.
Presented at the Workshop on Music Recommendation and Discovery on 26 September 2010, co-located with ACM Recommender Systems.
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
Using tags and topic models to describe and compare playlists
1. Using Song Social Tags and
Topic Models to Describe and
Compare Playlists
Ben Fields Christhophe Mark
b.fields@gold.ac.uk Rhodes d’Inverno
Sunday, September 26, 2010
2. overview
– motivation
– describing playlists
– comparing playlists
– use and evaluation
2 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
3. motivation
3 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
4. how is music consumed?
4 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
5. listening.
5 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
6. is music recommendation
broken?
6 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
7. listening.
7 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
8. perhaps we should consider
recommendations in the
context of their playorder
8 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
9. perhaps we should consider
recommendations in
playlists
9 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
10. describing playlists
10 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
11. describing playlists
song representation
Artist: dev/null
Title : Zombie Sunset
11 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
12. describing playlists
song representation
Artist: dev/null
Title : Zombie Sunset
11 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
13. describing playlists
song representation
11 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
14. describing playlists
song representation
11 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
15. describing playlists
song reduction
tag weight
breakcore 100
idm 60
electronic 35 => P (Ti )
experimental 35
grindcore 10
... ...
12 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
16. describing playlists
topic models
– a tag cloud is a representation of a
song
– a topic is a pdf of all tags
– many weighted topics can model tag
clouds
– dimensionality is the number of
topics
13 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
17. describing playlists
Latent Direchlete Allocation
!
# " z w
N
M
14 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
18. describing playlists
Latent Direchlete Allocation
gather tags for all songs
create LDA model describing
topic distributions
infer topic mixtures for all
songs
create vector database
of playlists
15 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
19. comparing playlists
16 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
20. comparing playlists
sequence matching
17 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
21. comparing playlists
sequence matching
17 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
22. comparing playlists
sequence matching
17 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
23. comparing playlists
sequence matching
17 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
24. comparing playlists
sequence matching
17 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
25. comparing playlists
distance between sequences
– Compatible with any n-dimensional
distance measure
– In our evaluation we use multi-
dimensional euclidean distance
– For query and retrieval among
playlists we use audioDB
18 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
26. evaluation
19 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
27. evaluation
test sets
– Radio Paradise
–18 months of logs from 1 station
–partitioned with marked links
– yes.com
–1 week of logs from 9 genres of
stations, eval uses ‘rock’ and ‘jazz’
–partitioned every hour
20 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
28. evaluation
test sets
source St Smt Pt Pavg(time) Pavg(songs)
whole yes.com 885810 2543 70190 55min 12.62
“Rock” stations 105952 865 9414 53min 11.25
“Jazz” stations 36593 1092 3787 55min 9.66
“Radio Paradise” 195691 2246 45284 16min 4.32
stics for both the radio log datasets. Symbols are as follows: St is t
n the dataset; Smt is the total number of songs in St where tags could
lists; Pavg(time) is the average runtime ofWOMRAD 2010
21 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists
these playlists and Pavg(songs) i
.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
29. evaluation
finding dayparts
using both datasets, will playlists
retrieve to others that are played
around the same time?
22 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
30. evaluation
finding dayparts
23 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
31. evaluation
finding dayparts
24 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
32. evaluation
retrieval by station
is a playlist similar to others from its
own station?
25 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
33. evaluation
retrieval by station
26 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
34. evaluation
retrieval by station
27 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
35. evaluation
retrieval by station
28 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
36. conclusions
summary
– tag clouds and topic models for
representation of playlists
– sequence matching
– two evaluations
–dayparting needed better data
–station based queries showed solid
result
29 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
37. conclusions
future work
–other distance metrics
–more datasets
–better labels
–alignment with humans
30 Fields et al. - Tags, Topics and Playlists WOMRAD 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010