Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Line in the Sand: Recommendation or Ad-hoc Retrieval?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1807.08061 v1 pith:DKMFFMBH submitted 2018-07-21 cs.IR

classification cs.IR
keywords retrievalad-hocrecommendationpopularranktaskapproachesmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The popular approaches to recommendation and ad-hoc retrieval tasks are largely distinct in the literature. In this work, we argue that many recommendation problems can also be cast as ad-hoc retrieval tasks. To demonstrate this, we build a solution for the RecSys 2018 Spotify challenge by combining standard ad-hoc retrieval models and using popular retrieval tools sets. We draw a parallel between the playlist continuation task and the task of finding good expansion terms for queries in ad-hoc retrieval, and show that standard pseudo-relevance feedback can be effective as a collaborative filtering approach. We also use ad-hoc retrieval for content-based recommendation by treating the input playlist title as a query and associating all candidate tracks with meta-descriptions extracted from the background data. The recommendations from these two approaches are further supplemented by a nearest neighbor search based on track embeddings learned by a popular neural model. Our final ranked list of recommendations is produced by a learning to rank model. Our proposed solution using ad-hoc retrieval models achieved a competitive performance on the music recommendation task at RecSys 2018 challenge---finishing at rank 7 out of 112 participating teams and at rank 5 out of 31 teams for the main and the creative tracks, respectively.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools