多目标推荐系统中最优权衡方案的研究

Vincenzo Paparella
{"title":"多目标推荐系统中最优权衡方案的研究","authors":"Vincenzo Paparella","doi":"10.1145/3523227.3547425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional research in Recommender Systems (RSs) often solely focuses on accuracy and a limited number of beyond-accuracy dimensions. Nonetheless, real-world RSs need to consider several other aspects, such as customer satisfaction or stakeholders’ interests. Consequently, the evaluation criteria must comprehend other dimensions, like click rate, or revenue, to cite a few of them. However, what objective should the system optimize, and what objective should it sacrifice? An emerging approach to tackle the problem and aim to blend different (sometimes conflicting) objectives is Multi-Objective Recommender Systems (MORSs). This proposal sketches a strategy to exploit the Pareto optimality to introduce a new optimal solution selection approach and investigate how existing RSs perform with multi-objective tasks. The goals are twofold: (i) discovering how to rank the solutions lying on the Pareto frontier to find the best trade-off solution and (ii) comparing the Pareto frontiers of different recommendation approaches to assess whether one performs better for the considered objectives. These measures could lead to a new class of MORSs that train an RS on multiple objectives to reach the best trade-off solution directly.","PeriodicalId":443279,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pursuing Optimal Trade-Off Solutions in Multi-Objective Recommender Systems\",\"authors\":\"Vincenzo Paparella\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3523227.3547425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Traditional research in Recommender Systems (RSs) often solely focuses on accuracy and a limited number of beyond-accuracy dimensions. Nonetheless, real-world RSs need to consider several other aspects, such as customer satisfaction or stakeholders’ interests. Consequently, the evaluation criteria must comprehend other dimensions, like click rate, or revenue, to cite a few of them. However, what objective should the system optimize, and what objective should it sacrifice? An emerging approach to tackle the problem and aim to blend different (sometimes conflicting) objectives is Multi-Objective Recommender Systems (MORSs). This proposal sketches a strategy to exploit the Pareto optimality to introduce a new optimal solution selection approach and investigate how existing RSs perform with multi-objective tasks. The goals are twofold: (i) discovering how to rank the solutions lying on the Pareto frontier to find the best trade-off solution and (ii) comparing the Pareto frontiers of different recommendation approaches to assess whether one performs better for the considered objectives. These measures could lead to a new class of MORSs that train an RS on multiple objectives to reach the best trade-off solution directly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3523227.3547425\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3523227.3547425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

推荐系统(RSs)的传统研究通常只关注准确性和有限数量的超越准确性的维度。尽管如此,实际的RSs需要考虑其他几个方面,例如客户满意度或涉众的利益。因此,评估标准必须包含其他维度,如点击率或收益等。但是,系统应该优化的目标是什么?它应该牺牲的目标是什么?多目标推荐系统(mors)是一种新兴的解决问题的方法,旨在混合不同的(有时是冲突的)目标。本文提出了一种利用帕累托最优性引入一种新的最优解选择方法的策略,并研究了现有RSs在多目标任务中的表现。目标有两个:(i)发现如何对帕累托边界上的解决方案进行排名,以找到最佳的权衡解决方案;(ii)比较不同推荐方法的帕累托边界,以评估是否有一种方法对所考虑的目标表现得更好。这些措施可能导致一种新的mss,它根据多个目标训练RS,以直接达到最佳权衡解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pursuing Optimal Trade-Off Solutions in Multi-Objective Recommender Systems
Traditional research in Recommender Systems (RSs) often solely focuses on accuracy and a limited number of beyond-accuracy dimensions. Nonetheless, real-world RSs need to consider several other aspects, such as customer satisfaction or stakeholders’ interests. Consequently, the evaluation criteria must comprehend other dimensions, like click rate, or revenue, to cite a few of them. However, what objective should the system optimize, and what objective should it sacrifice? An emerging approach to tackle the problem and aim to blend different (sometimes conflicting) objectives is Multi-Objective Recommender Systems (MORSs). This proposal sketches a strategy to exploit the Pareto optimality to introduce a new optimal solution selection approach and investigate how existing RSs perform with multi-objective tasks. The goals are twofold: (i) discovering how to rank the solutions lying on the Pareto frontier to find the best trade-off solution and (ii) comparing the Pareto frontiers of different recommendation approaches to assess whether one performs better for the considered objectives. These measures could lead to a new class of MORSs that train an RS on multiple objectives to reach the best trade-off solution directly.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信