Addressing Cold-Start in App Recommendation: Latent User Models Constructed from Twitter Followers

By Jovian Lin, Kazunari Sugiyama, Min-Yen Kan, and Tat-Seng Chua.

Presented at the 36th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'13), Dublin, Ireland, July 28--August 1, 2013.

Source available at: http://jovianlin.com

#SIGIR #SIGIR13 #SIGIR2013 #NUS #WING-NUS

Transcript

1. Addressing Cold-Start in App Recommendations: Jovian Lin / Kazunari Sugiyama / Min-Yen Kan / Tat-Seng Chua National University of Singapore Latent User Models Constructed from Twitter Followers
2. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion
3. Many, many apps. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion No. of apps Time 1/32
5. INFORMATION OVERLOAD !
6. Content-based Filtering Recommender Systems Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Collaborative Filtering 2/32
7. Content-based Filtering Recommender Systems Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Collaborative Filtering 4 1 4 5 4 ? 1 ? 5 ? 5 ? 1 ? 4 items 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 users ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4 5 new items 3/32
8. Content-based Filtering Recommender Systems Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Collaborative Filtering 4 1 4 5 4 ? 1 ? 5 ? 5 ? 1 ? 4 items 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 users ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4 5 new items COLD START PROBLEM Solution #1: Wait for ratings to come in. Solution #2: Use content-based filtering. 3/32
9. Collaborative Filtering Content-based Filtering Recommender Systems Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion •  Recommends items based on similar content. (e.g., genres, textual descriptions) •  Con: Lack of diversified recommendations. Example: a user who has downloaded a weather app will receive weather-related app-recommendations. 4/32
10. Meanwhile… Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 5/32
13. “Can we merge information mined from social networks to enhance (app) recommendations?” Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 6/32
14. “Can we address the cold-start in recommender systems by using nascent signals in social networks?” Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 7/32
15. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 8/32
16. We made two observations: 1.  Apps contain references to their Twitter accounts. 2.  Early signals about apps can be present in social networks, even before ratings are received. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion
17. We made two observations: 1.  Apps contain references to their Twitter accounts. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 9/32
18. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 9/32
19. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 9/32
20. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Follow @angrybirds on Twitter 9/32
22. We made two observations: 1.  Apps contain references to their Twitter accounts. 2.  Early signals about apps can be present in social networks, even before ratings are received. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 10/32
23. We made two observations: 1.  Apps contain references to their Twitter accounts. 2.  Early signals about apps can be present in social networks, even before ratings are received. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Evernote iOS app Release Date: 8 May 2012 May 2012 Jun 2012 Jul 2012 Dec 2012 … 0 ratings 0 ratings First few ratings start coming in 118,827 ratings Has an account on Twitter since Feb 2008 By May 2012, Evernote’s Twitter account already had 120,000 followers and 1,300 tweets. 10/32
24. We made two observations: 1.  Apps contain references to their Twitter accounts. 2.  Early signals about apps can be present in social networks, even before ratings are received. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion We *CAN* address the cold-start in recommender systems by using nascent signals in social networks. 11/32
25. We want to estimate the probability that “a target user u will like an app a.” Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion “like” app user p( + | a, u ) 12/32
26. We want to estimate the probability that “a target user u will like an app a.” Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion p( + | a, u ) p( + | t, u) p( t | a) ∑ = “like” app user Twitter-follower “Pseudo-documents” & “Pseudo-words” Uniform distribution over the various Twitter-followers (t) following app a. t∈T(a) 13/32
27. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion downloaded/consumed 14/32
28. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u downloads 14/32
29. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u downloads twitter.com/angrybirds twitterID_31230 twitterID_2289 twitterID_999 twitterID_50401 …… followers twitterID_2 twitterID_3142439 twitterID_111031 14/32
31. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u downloads twitter.com/angrybirds twitterID_31230 twitterID_2289 twitterID_999 twitterID_50401 …… followers twitterID_2 twitterID_3142439 twitterID_111031 14/32
32. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u downloads twitterID_31230 twitterID_2289 twitterID_999 twitterID_50401 …… followers twitterID_2 twitterID_3142439 twitterID_111031 14/32
33. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u downloads twitterID_31230 twitterID_2289 twitterID_999 twitterID_50401 …… followers twitterID_2 twitterID_3142439 twitterID_111031 14/32
34. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u twitterID_31230 twitterID_2289 twitterID_999 twitterID_50401 …… twitterID_2 twitterID_3142439 twitterID_111031 14/32
35. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion User u twitterID_31230 twitterID_2289 twitterID_999 twitterID_50401 …… twitterID_2 twitterID_3142439 twitterID_111031 Pseudo-Document Pseudo-Words 15/32
36. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Pseudo-document u (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) User u disliked liked liked Followed by: •  twitterID10 •  twitterID12 Followed by: •  twitterID10 •  twitterID12 •  twitterID29 App a App b App c Twitter-follower ID Preference indicator Followed by: •  twitterID29 •  twitterID31 16/32
37. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Pseudo-document u (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) Twitter-follower ID Preference indicator The concept of “pseudo-documents” and “pseudo-words” *does not* apply exclusively to Twitter followers. 17/32
38. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Pseudo-document u (genreID10 , DISLIKED) (genreID12 , DISLIKED) (genreID10 , LIKED) (genreID12 , LIKED) (genreID29 , LIKED) (genreID29 , LIKED) (genreID31 , LIKED) Genre ID Preference indicator The concept of “pseudo-documents” and “pseudo-words” *does not* apply exclusively to Twitter followers. 17/32
39. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Pseudo-document u (wordID10 , DISLIKED) (wordID12 , DISLIKED) (wordID10 , LIKED) (wordID12 , LIKED) (wordID29 , LIKED) (wordID29 , LIKED) (wordID31 , LIKED) Word ID Preference indicator The concept of “pseudo-documents” and “pseudo-words” *does not* apply exclusively to Twitter followers. 17/32
40. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Pseudo-document u (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) 17/32
41. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Pseudo-document u (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) Constructing Latent Groups 18/32
42. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Constructing Latent Groups (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) Pseudo-documents LDA Per-document topic distribution Per-topic word distribution 19/32
43. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Constructing Latent Groups (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) Pseudo-documents LDA = ∑ p( +, t | z) p( z | u) p( + | t, u) Per-document topic distribution Per-topic word distribution z∈Z 19/32
44. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Constructing Latent Groups (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) Pseudo-documents LDA = ∑ p( +, t | z) p( z | u) p( + | t, u) Per-document topic distribution Per-topic word distribution Per-topic word distribution Per-document topic distribution z∈Z 19/32
45. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion Constructing Latent Groups (twitterID10 , DISLIKED) (twitterID12 , DISLIKED) (twitterID10 , LIKED) (twitterID12 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID29 , LIKED) (twitterID31 , LIKED) Pseudo-documents LDA = ∑ p( +, t | z) p( z | u) p( + | t, u) Per-document topic distribution Per-topic word distribution Probability that the presence of Twitter-follower t indicates that it is “liked” by user u. z∈Z 19/32
46. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion p( + | t, u) p( t | a) 20/32
47. We want to estimate the probability that “a target user u will like an app a.” Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion p( + | a, u ) p( + | t, u) p( t | a) ∑ = “like” app user Uniform distribution over the various Twitter-followers (t) following app a. Probability that the presence of Twitter-follower t indicates that it is “liked” by user u. Derived from Pseudo-Documents and Pseudo-Words. t∈T(a) 21/32 Stated earlier in Slide 13/32
48. Dataset •  We collected data from the Apple iTunes Store and Twitter during September to December 2012. •  Stats: •  1,289,668 ratings •  7,116 apps (with Twitter accounts) •  10,133 users. •  Restrictions: •  Each user must give at least 10 ratings for apps. •  Each Twitter ID is related to at least 5 apps. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 22/32
49. Simulating Cold-Start •  10-fold cross validation. •  Selected 10% of the apps to be the held out set for all users. •  Each user has the same within-fold apps. •  Guarantee that none of these apps are in the training set of any user. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 23/32
50. Evaluation Metric •  Our system outputs M apps for each user, sorted by their probability of liking the apps. •  Recall@M •  Zero ratings are uncertain – it is difficult to accurately compute precision. •  Since the ratings are true positives, recall is a more pertinent measure – it only considers the positively rated apps. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 24/32
51. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion 3 Research Questions (RQ) 25/32
52. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? RQ2: How does our method compare with other techniques? RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 25/32
53. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? 25/32
54. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? RQ2: How does our method compare with other techniques? 25/32
55. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? RQ2: How does our method compare with other techniques? RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 25/32
56. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Recall Number of recommended apps (M) Pseudo-Docs (W) Pseudo-Docs (D) Pseudo-Docs (G) Pseudo-Docs (T) Pseudo-Docs (All) •  Words (W) •  Developers (D) •  Genres (G) •  Twitter-followers (T) •  All features (All) All = T = G = D = W = All features Twitter-followers Genres Developers Words 26/32
57. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? Feature R@100 All features (TGDW) * 0.513 All, excluding Twitter-followers (GDW) 0.452 All, excluding Genres (TDW) 0.491 All, excluding Developers (TGW) 0.498 All, excluding Words (TGD) 0.507 Twitter-followers (T) 0.478 Genres (G) 0.435 Developers (D) 0.395 Words (W) 0.373 27/32
58. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? Feature R@100 All features (TGDW) * 0.513 All, excluding Twitter-followers (GDW) 0.452 All, excluding Genres (TDW) 0.491 All, excluding Developers (TGW) 0.498 All, excluding Words (TGD) 0.507 Twitter-followers (T) 0.478 Genres (G) 0.435 Developers (D) 0.395 Words (W) 0.373 27/32
59. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? Feature R@100 All features (TGDW) * 0.513 All, excluding Twitter-followers (GDW) 0.452 All, excluding Genres (TDW) 0.491 All, excluding Developers (TGW) 0.498 All, excluding Words (TGD) 0.507 Twitter-followers (T) 0.478 Genres (G) 0.435 Developers (D) 0.395 Words (W) 0.373 27/32
60. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? Feature R@100 All features (TGDW) * 0.513 All, excluding Twitter-followers (GDW) 0.452 All, excluding Genres (TDW) 0.491 All, excluding Developers (TGW) 0.498 All, excluding Words (TGD) 0.507 Twitter-followers (T) 0.478 Genres (G) 0.435 Developers (D) 0.395 Words (W) 0.373 27/32
61. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? Feature R@100 All features (TGDW) * 0.513 All, excluding Twitter-followers (GDW) 0.452 All, excluding Genres (TDW) 0.491 All, excluding Developers (TGW) 0.498 All, excluding Words (TGD) 0.507 Twitter-followers (T) 0.478 Genres (G) 0.435 Developers (D) 0.395 Words (W) 0.373 27/32
62. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ1: How does the performance of Twitter-followers feature compare with other features? 28/32
63. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ2: How does our method compare with other techniques? 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Recall Number of recommended apps (M) Full Dataset VSM (Words) VSM (Twitter) LDA CTR Pseudo-Docs (Twitter)* Pseudo-Docs (All)** •  VSM (Words) •  VSM (Twitter) •  LDA •  Collaborative Topic Regression •  Pseudo-Docs (Twitter) •  Pseudo-Docs (All) Pseudo-Docs (All) Pseudo-Docs (Twitter) CTR LDA VSM (Twitter) VSM (Words) 29/32
64. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ2: How does our method compare with other techniques? 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Recall Number of recommended apps (M) Limited to 15 apps per user (Sparse Dataset) VSM (Words) VSM (Twitter) LDA CTR Pseudo-Docs (Twitter)* Pseudo-Docs (All)* Pseudo-Docs (All) Pseudo-Docs (Twitter) CTR LDA VSM (Twitter) VSM (Words) 30/32
65. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
66. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
67. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
68. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
69. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
70. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? “The Cat in the Hat” (Book) “Christmas Cutie” (Book) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
71. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? “Friendly Shapes” (Education) “There’s No Place Like Space” (Education) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
72. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
73. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? Top 5 Twitter Profiles in Latent Group 1. “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
74. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? Nosy Crow Apps Nosy Crow creates children’s books and apps. You may know our 3-D Fairytale apps, The Three Little Pigs & Cinderella. “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
75. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? The iMums Four mums dedicated to reviewing apps and technology products for children to help educate their parents about the variety available. “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
76. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? Mums with Apps Supporting family-friendly developers seeking to promote quality apps for kids and families. “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
77. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? Charly James Div. Mom of 2 with varying SN & medical d/x. dandelion moms. “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
78. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? Next is Great We create and develop brain teasing educational iOS apps for kids and teenagers. Check out Pirate Trio Academy and Geek Kids. “Pasta Crazy Chef” (Games) “Gingerbread Dress” (Games) “Books” / “Education” / “Games” 31/32
79. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
80. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “BeatStudio”, “AmpKit+”, “GuitarStudio”, “Everyday Looper”, “Mixr DJ”, etc. “Music”
81. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “BeatStudio”, “AmpKit+”, “GuitarStudio”, “Everyday Looper”, “Mixr DJ”, etc. “Music” Top 5 Twitter Profiles in Latent Group 2.
82. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “BeatStudio”, “AmpKit+”, “GuitarStudio”, “Everyday Looper”, “Mixr DJ”, etc. “Music” Derek Jones Indie music publishing label, studio & brand. Blues&Rock, Progressive&Funk, Jazz&Fusion, Alternative&Christian, Classical, Education & a lot in-between too!
83. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “BeatStudio”, “AmpKit+”, “GuitarStudio”, “Everyday Looper”, “Mixr DJ”, etc. “Music” Chip Boaz I’m a musician based in the San Francisco Bay Area with an interest in using my iPad, iPhone, & iPod to make music. Follow my iOS adventures.
84. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “BeatStudio”, “AmpKit+”, “GuitarStudio”, “Everyday Looper”, “Mixr DJ”, etc. “Music” Dave Gibson Creator of MicroTrack dB, a music making app for iOS and Samsung bada. Musician, writer, audio engineer and synth nerd.
85. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “Paper Monsters”, “Stickman Cliff Diving”, “Lili”, “Snoopy’s Street Fair”, “Gizmonauts”, etc. “Games”, “Photo & Video”
86. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32 “Paper Monsters”, “Stickman Cliff Diving”, “Lili”, “Snoopy’s Street Fair”, “Gizmonauts”, etc. “Games”, “Photo & Video” “Video games warrior, lover of life, eternal student of the universe…” “I’m a Multimedia developer working at Kent State Uni! I also do art services for the game industry…” “Agalog Games is an independent iOS game studio…” “Hi! Samadhi Games LLC is an Indie Developer of iOS, Android, etc”
87. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion RQ3: Do the latent groups make any sense? What can we learn from them? 31/32
88. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion •  Alleviate the cold-start in app-recommendation by using Twitter profiles of apps + Twitter followers. •  By using the feature of Twitter-followers to generate latent groups, our method works well – especially in a domain with unreliable textual features. •  Allows us to map users from the App Store to users in Twitter. •  Future work: •  Explore second-degree relationships on Twitter. •  Explore the use of our approach in other domains, such as music-recommendation. 32/32
89. Thank you
90. Introduction ›❯ Our Approach ›❯ Experiments ›❯ Results ›❯ Conclusion •  Ratings lag behind Twitter followers. •  Because it takes more effort to post a rating/review than to follow a Twitter account. •  Monitored a few new apps: •  Average # of new ratings/reviews in a week: 4.2 •  Average # of new Twitter followers in a week: 21.4 •  We want to recommend ASAP – even if it’s 1 day faster. #extra