<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Towards Eective Exploration/Exploitation in Sequential Music Recommendation</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Himan Abdollahpouri</string-name>
          <email>habdolla@depaul.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Steve Essinger</string-name>
          <email>sessinger@pandora.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Percent Increase of Station Change</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>DePaul University</institution>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Explore versus Exploit Song</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>following Sequence, 531</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Pandora Media, Inc.</institution>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2017</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>Music streaming companies collectively serve billions of songs per day. Radio-based music services may intersperse audio advertisements among the songs as a means to generate revenue, much like traditional FM radio. Regardless of the monetization approach, the recommender system should decide when to play content that the listener is known to enjoy (exploit) and content that is novel to the listener (explore). Recommender systems that rely on this explore/exploit type framework have been deployed in a wide variety of applications such as movies, books, music, shopping and more. In this work, we investigate the impact of dierent ad/song sequences on listener behavior. In particular, we focus on the impact of exploring new song content for the listener given the previous sequence of ads and songs in the listener's session. Our results show that the prior sequence maers when considering song exploration and that this prior sequence has an impact on the listener's tendency to interrupt their current session.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>Recommender systems (RS) have been deployed in numerous
domains including music, movies, e-commerce and books. In music
recommendation, one of the overarching goals of the RS is to nd
the best song to play for each listener, personalized to their specic
taste(s) in music. In general, companies oering music
recommendation services provide two dierent types of subscriptions: (1)
Ad-supported membership where the music is free, but the listener
is subject to advertisements and (2) premium membership where
listener pays a monthly membership fee in exchange for ad-free
listening. is paper focuses on the former, ad-supported listening.
Unsurprisingly, listeners prefer hearing songs over ads. However,
the business depends on the revenue that it makes from the ads
and cannot operate without serving them. erefore, playing ads
is crucial to keep the business alive and should be considered as a
content served to the listener along with music.</p>
      <p>
        One of the fundamental concepts in RS is the idea of exploration
and exploitation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. is paradigm results in a balance between
recommending content the system has high certainty the user would
like (exploitation) and the content for which there is less certainty
(exploration). Without exploration, users would become stuck in a
lter bubble and continue to see a narrow set of products. is is
a missed opportunity to experience other products that could be
of interest to them [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref8">5, 8</xref>
        ]. Another reason for exploration is when
the number of items matching a user’s interest is limited and the
system should not recommend the same item again to the user.
For example, in online dating [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], it is possible that the system
600
500
e400
s
a
e
r
Icn300
t
n
e
c
r
eP200
100
has already recommended all the available people who match the
user’s interest and, so, exploring a wider range of people is needed
in order to be able to generate new recommendations. erefore,
providing exploratory content to a user is a key component for
discovery. We conducted an experiment on a music
recommendation application and our results show that the previous sequence
of events in a listener’s session is important in deciding whether
the RS should provide subsequent exploratory types of content.
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>SONG/AD SEQUENCE ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>We have compiled data from a large-scale music recommendation
service for our analysis. To nd the eect of dierent sequences
of songs and ads on the probability of a user switching the station
aer listening to an exploratory song, we looked at one million
sessions on mobile devices where the ad placement had been made
completely at random. Note that the randomness of ad placement
is important in order to make sure our analysis is not biased toward
any particular ad placement algorithm. We compare the impact of
explore songs versus exploit songs in the context of the previous
three events. For example, given the prior three events Ad, Song,
Song, where each song is an exploit, what is the probability of
the listener changing the station if the next song spun for them is
an explore song versus the probability of station change given an
exploit song? Station change is used as a proxy for discontent with
the current stream of music.</p>
      <p>We calculated the probabilities of users changing the station
when they are exposed to dierent sequences of ads and songs as
208
64
104</p>
      <p>SAA ASS
Prior Event Sequence</p>
      <p>ASA</p>
      <p>AAS</p>
      <p>AAA
follows: there are a total of 8 possible event combinations for a set
of three items as shown in gure 1. We denote explore song by S0
and exploit song by S. Station change is represented by, C.</p>
      <p>Percentage Dierence = P (C j S 0) P (C j S) 100 (1)
P (C j S)
P (C j S 0) is the probability of a user changing the station given the
last played content is an explore song. P (C j S) is the probability of a
user changing the station when the last played content is an exploit
song. e lower and upper condence bounds for the computed
percentage increases, shown in gure 1 as vertical blue lines on top
of the bars, are computed as follows,</p>
      <p>P (C j S 0) P (C j S) 1:96 SE 100 (2)</p>
      <p>P (C j S)
where SE (i.e. the standard error) is calculated using equation 3,
s P (C j S 0) (1</p>
      <p>NS 0</p>
      <p>P (C j S 0)) + P (C j S) (1</p>
      <p>P (C j S))</p>
      <p>(3)
NS
where NS 0 is the total number of times an explore song has been
played. e total number of times an exploit song has been played
is denoted by NS . Figure 1 shows the percent increase of station
changes aer playing an explore versus an exploit song when a user
has observed the respective prior sequence of exploit songs and ads.
Due to the company’s data privacy policy, we have not included
the individual probabilities of switching the station for explore
and exploit songs, but have provided the probability dierence of
change.</p>
      <p>An exploit song is denoted by S and an ad is shown by A. As
you can see, depending upon the previous sequence of songs and
ads, the probability of a user switching the station when we show
them an explore song is higher than the probability when we show
an exploit song. is is true for all 8 dierent combinations of
songs and ads. Moreover, some sequences are riskier than the
others for placing an explore song. For example, the ASA sequence
(which means playing an ad, then a song and then another ad) has
the highest probability increase (+531.13%) of a user switching the
station when given an explore song aer that sequence. Clearly,
this is not the best opportunity to explore new content. On the
other hand, the SAA sequence has the lowest probability increase
(+64.42%), but is still positive. While playing an explore song is still
riskier than an exploit song in all cases, it is beer to explore aer
particular sequences over others. Certainly, dierent sequences of
songs and ads have dierent eects on station switching behavior
and a recommender system should try to take these sequences into
account when doing exploration and exploitation, as in our
sequential music recommendation system. Overarching, instead of a blind
explore-exploit platform, we advise taking an intelligent approach
that accounts for a listener’s state of listening (whether they are
happy with the past couple of songs/ads or not) into account when
deciding to exploit or when to explore.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3 RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>
        e idea of explore-exploit has been studied in recommender
systems by some researchers [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. In particular, for single item
recommendation, approaches like Multi-Armed Bandits have been
used to make a balance between exploration and exploitation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
Moreover, authors have previously proposed an approach for an
effective balance between recommending popular and long-tail items
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. A more similar idea to our work is done in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] where authors
investigated a proper timing for delivering the recommendation.
However, in our work, we are not looking for a perfect timing for
the recommendation in general as the user always should receive a
content (song or ad) as recommendation. Our work is also novel as
we look at the previous sequences of the recommendations as an
indication for whether it is a good time for exploration or not.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>
        In this work, we investigated the impact of dierent ad/song
sequences on listener behavior. In particular, we focused on the
impact of exploring new song content for the listener given the
previous set of ads and songs in the listener’s session. Our
experimental results show that the previous sequence of ads/songs
maers in deciding what the right time is for exploration versus
exploitation. For our future work, we will launch an A/B experiment
controlling for the placement of explore songs and see how
dierent users behave when they observe dierent sequences of songs
and ads. We will also investigate more sophisticated oine models,
such as HMMs and RNNs in a reinforcement learning seing that
could learn superior personalized playlist sequencing. is work is
a starting point for a larger project in which we aim to optimize the
stream of recommendations of mixed types of content (i.e. contents
from dierent stakeholders) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref3 ref4">1, 3, 4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</title>
      <p>We would like to thank Pandora Media, Inc. for access to their
vastly rich dataset.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Himan</given-names>
            <surname>Abdollahpouri</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Robin Burke, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Mobasher</given-names>
            <surname>Bamshad</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Recommender systems as multi-stakeholder environments</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling</source>
          ,
          <article-title>Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP2017)</article-title>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Himan</given-names>
            <surname>Abdollahpouri</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Robin Burke, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Bamshad</given-names>
            <surname>Mobasher</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Controlling Popularity Bias in Learning to Rank Recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM</source>
          , To appear.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Himan</given-names>
            <surname>Abdollahpouri</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Steve</given-names>
            <surname>Essinger</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Multiple stakeholders in a music recommender system</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 1st International Workshop on Value-Aware and Multistakeholder Recommendation at RecSys</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Robin</given-names>
            <surname>Burke</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Himan</given-names>
            <surname>Abdollahpouri</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Paerns of Multistakeholder Recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 1st International Workshop on Value-Aware and Multistakeholder Recommendation at RecSys</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Oscar</given-names>
            <surname>Celma</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2016</year>
          .
          <article-title>e Exploit-Explore Dilemma in Music Recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>377</volume>
          -
          <fpage>377</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Nofar</given-names>
            <surname>Dali</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Betzalel</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Bracha Shapira, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Lior</given-names>
            <surname>Rokach</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>Please, not now!: A model for timing recommendations</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>297</volume>
          -
          <fpage>300</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Luiz</given-names>
            <surname>Pizzato</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Tomek Rej, omas Chung, Irena Koprinska, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Judy</given-names>
            <surname>Kay</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2010</year>
          .
          <article-title>RECON: a reciprocal recommender for online dating</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>207</volume>
          -
          <fpage>214</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Paul</given-names>
            <surname>Resnick</surname>
          </string-name>
          , R Kelly Garre,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Travis</surname>
            <given-names>Kriplean</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Sean A Munson,</article-title>
          and Natalie Jomini Stroud.
          <year>2013</year>
          .
          <article-title>Bursting your (lter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>95</volume>
          -
          <fpage>100</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hastagiri</surname>
            <given-names>P Vanchinathan</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Isidor Nikolic, Fabio De Bona, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Andreas</given-names>
            <surname>Krause</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Explore-exploit in top-n recommender systems via gaussian processes</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>225</volume>
          -
          <fpage>232</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Xinxi</surname>
            <given-names>Wang</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Yi</given-names>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>David Hsu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>and Ye</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Exploration in interactive personalized music recommendation: a reinforcement learning approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing</source>
          , Communications, and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Applications</surname>
          </string-name>
          (TOMM)
          <volume>11</volume>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ),
          <fpage>7</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>