When selecting ideas or trying to find inspiration, designers often must sift through hundreds or thousands of ideas. This paper provides an algorithm to rank design ideas such that the ranked list simultaneously maximizes the quality and diversity of recommended designs. To do so, we first define and compare two diversity measures using Determinantal Point Processes (DPP) and additive sub-modular functions. We show that DPPs are more suitable for items expressed as text and that a greedy algorithm diversifies rankings with both theoretical guarantees and empirical performance on what is otherwise an NP-Hard problem. To produce such rankings, this paper contributes a novel way to extend quality and diversity metrics from sets to permutations of ranked lists. These rank metrics open up the use of multi-objective optimization to describe trade-offs between diversity and quality in ranked lists. We use such trade-off fronts to help designers select rankings using indifference curves. However, we also show that rankings on trade-off front share a number of top-ranked items; this means reviewing items (for a given depth like the top 10) from across the entire diversity-to-quality front incurs only a marginal increase in the number of designs considered. While the proposed techniques are general purpose enough to be used across domains, we demonstrate concrete performance on selecting items in an online design community (OpenIDEO), where our approach reduces the time required to review diverse, high-quality ideas from around 25 hours to 90 minutes. This makes evaluation of crowd-generated ideas tractable for a single designer. Our code is publicly accessible for further research.
The main research questions within both recommender systems and information retrieval are two-fold: (1) how do we represent this diminishing marginal utility, and once we do (2) how do we optimize over it efficiently? For the former question, researchers have proposed alternate scoring methods to diversify rankings. An early exemplar of this was Ziegler al @cite_14 who modeled the topics in text documents and then tried to balance the topics within recommended lists. Their large scale user survey showed that a user's overall satisfaction with lists depended on both accuracy and the perceived diversity of list items. Approaches that followed largely centered around the notion of that a diverse set should somehow cover a space of items well. The main differentiators of past approaches are how this coverage is measured and then combined with other objectives such as document relevance.
@cite_14
2097951507 2116827250 2037098674 2092902234
The primary premise upon which top-N recommender systems operate is that similar users are likely to have similar tastes with regard to their product choices. For this reason, recommender algorithms depend deeply on similarity metrics to build the recommendation lists for end-users. However, it has been noted that the products offered on recommendation lists are often too similar to each other and attention has been paid towards the goal of improving diversity to avoid monotonous recommendations. Noting that the retrieval of a set of items matching a user query is a common problem across many applications of information retrieval, we model the competing goals of maximizing the diversity of the retrieved list while maintaining adequate similarity to the user query as a binary optimization problem. We explore a solution strategy to this optimization problem by relaxing it to a trust-region problem.This leads to a parameterized eigenvalue problem whose solution is finally quantized to the required binary solution. We apply this approach to the top-N prediction problem, evaluate the system performance on the Movielens dataset and compare it with a standard item-based top-N algorithm. A new evaluation metric ItemNovelty is proposed in this work. Improvements on both diversity and accuracy are obtained compared to the benchmark algorithm. Ranking information retrieval (IR) systems with respect to their effectiveness is a crucial operation during IR evaluation, as well as during data fusion. This article offers a novel method of approaching the system-ranking problem, based on the widely studied idea of polyrepresentation. The principle of polyrepresentation suggests that a single information need can be represented by many query articulations–what we call query aspects. By skimming the top k (where k is small) documents retrieved by a single system for multiple query aspects, we collect a set of documents that are likely to be relevant to a given test topic. Labeling these skimmed documents as putatively relevant lets us build pseudorelevance judgments without undue human intervention. We report experiments where using these pseudorelevance judgments delivers a rank ordering of IR systems that correlates highly with rankings based on human relevance judgments. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Traditionally, information retrieval systems aim to maximize thenumber of relevant documents returned to a user within some windowof the top. For that goal, the probability ranking principle, whichranks documents in decreasing order of probability of relevance, isprovably optimal. However, there are many scenarios in which thatranking does not optimize for the users information need. Oneexample is when the user would be satisfied with some limitednumber of relevant documents, rather than needing all relevantdocuments. We show that in such a scenario, an attempt to returnmany relevant documents can actually reduce the chances of findingany relevant documents. We consider a number of information retrieval metrics from theliterature, including the rank of the first relevant result, the no metric that penalizes a system only for retrieving no relevantresults near the top, and the diversity of retrieved results whenqueries have multiple interpretations. We observe that given aprobabilistic model of relevance, it is appropriate to rank so asto directly optimize these metrics in expectation. While doing somay be computationally intractable, we show that a simple greedyoptimization algorithm that approximately optimizes the givenobjectives produces rankings for TREC queries that outperform thestandard approach based on the probability ranking principle. While recommendation approaches exploiting different input sources have started to proliferate in the literature, an explicit study of the effect of the combination of heterogeneous inputs is still missing. On the other hand, in this context there are sides to recommendation quality requiring further characterisation and methodological research - a gap that is acknowledged in the field. We present a comparative study on the influence that different types of information available in social systems have on item recommendation. Aiming to identify which sources of user interest evidence - tags, social contacts, and user-item interaction data - are more effective to achieve useful recommendations, and in what aspect, we evaluate a number of content-based, collaborative filtering, and social recommenders on three datasets obtained from Delicious, Last.fm, and MovieLens. Aiming to determine whether and how combining such information sources may enhance over individual recommendation approaches, we extend the common accuracy-oriented evaluation practice with various metrics to measure further recommendation quality dimensions, namely coverage, diversity, novelty, overlap, and relative diversity between ranked item recommendations. We report empiric observations showing that exploiting tagging information by content-based recommenders provides high coverage and novelty, and combining social networking and collaborative filtering information by hybrid recommenders results in high accuracy and diversity. This, along with the fact that recommendation lists from the evaluated approaches had low overlap and relative diversity values between them, gives insights that meta-hybrid recommenders combining the above strategies may provide valuable, balanced item suggestions in terms of performance and non-performance metrics.