Blendle @ RecSys'17: Online Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems
Online Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems by Daan Odijk (Blendle) https://recsys.acm.org/recsys17/industry-session-3/ Every morning, at Blendle, we have a huge cold-start problem when over 8.000 new articles from the latest editions of newspapers arrive in our system. At that moment, these articles are read by virtually no-one and we are tasked with sending out personalised newsletters to over 1 million users. We can thus not rely on collaborative filtering type of recommendations, nor can we use the popularity of the articles as clues for what our user might want to read. We overcome our cold-start problem by a mix of curation by our editorial team and an automated analysis of the content of these articles. We extract named entities, semantic links, authors, the language and plenty of stylometrics. For each of our users, we build a very fine grained profile based on the attributes of the articles that they read. The combination of enriched articles and user profiles is fed into our machine learning pipeline. We are currently experimenting with an online learning to rank setup, where each of our users is exposed to a slightly perturbed version of our ranking model. We observe the interactions of our users to infer in which direction we should be updating the model. Our editorial team gets up at around 5am every morning to read what was published over night. They are done reading and recommending their selection of articles around 8am, which is also the time we would ideally send out the newsletter so that our users, on their commute to work, can read our newsletter. These timing restrictions pose yet another challenge: our content analysis and machine learning pipeline needs to be really fast. We solve this by using a streaming infrastructure build on Kafka. In this infrastructure, an article is analysed and scored for relevance towards each of our users as soons as it arrives. This has the advantage that at 8am, when our editorial team is done reading, personalisation is much more lightweight. We use the precomputed relevance scores and balance them with diversity to arrive at a unique ranking for each of our users. In this talk, I will detail how we enrich articles in a streaming fashion and how we use online learning methods to learn a ranking model. I will also talk about how we deal with the time constraints of the problem we are trying to solve. ABOUT THE SPEAKER Daan Odijk is lead data scientist at Blendle, a New York Times backed startup that builds a platform where users can explore and support the world’s best journalism and only pay for what they read. Daan heads a team of eight data scientists and engineers who work on personalised recommendations. Daan has a PhD in information retrieval and has worked on leveraging context when searching for news.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Último
Último (20)
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Blendle @ RecSys'17: Online Learning to Rank for Recommender Systems
- 1. Online Learning to Rank for Recommending Daan Odijk Lead data scientist @ Blendle
- 2. @dodijk Mission Help you discover and support the world’s best journalism International May 2014: The Netherlands Sept 2015: Germany March 2016: United States Publisher-backed a.o. NY Times, Nikkei, Axel Springer 70 employees 10 journalists & 50 developers Blendle
- 3. @dodijk In Blendle you can browse through all quality newspapers and magazines
- 4. @dodijk You only pay for what you read, with a single click
- 5. Scale at Blendle @dodijk Articles > 6M in total > 7K new every day > 30% is read Users > 1M users ~ 1 in 5 converts to a paying user Events ~ 2B in total > 2M new every day ! "
- 6. @dodijk Our editors select the best articles for our email newsletter every day Our personalisation algorithms create a personal bundle from this
- 8. @dodijk
- 9. @dodijk
- 12. @dodijk Random Forest classifier trained on a year of editorial picks Clustered based on Cosine similarity with TF.IDF vectors Prioritised Selection
- 14. Daily cold start • >7K new articles every night • Our newsletter is an important traffic driver • No usage info to rank the newsletter before we send the newsletter
- 15. Article enrichment pipeline Author extraction Semantic linking Sentiment analysis Stylometry Named Entity Recognition PoS-tagging Length, word variation, vocabulary richness, … Polarity scores (negative, positive) Locations, persons, organizations Wikipedia concepts @dodijk Language detection Topic modeling Tokenization Spark LDA EM
- 16. User Profiling Enrich Aggregate Profile • Reads • Views • Negative feedback
- 17. Learning to rank: preference learning Model Enrich EnrichProfile Profile Extract ML Features Learning to predict
- 18. Learning to rank: preference learning Model Enrich EnrichProfile Profile Extract ML Features Learning to predict Enrich Profile Extract ML Features Rank Ranking
- 19. Online Learning to Rank • Learning with a user in the loop • Daily updates to our model
- 20. query [Yue et al, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2011] Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent wAuthor wTopic wAuthor wTopic Explorative RankerExploitative Ranker For Blendle the useris the query
- 21. Interleaved Ranking Explorative RankingExploitative Ranking A B C D E F C G D A B E query TeamDraft Interleave Radlinski, F., Kurup, M., & Joachims, T. (2008). How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? In CIKM ’08.
- 22. Interleaved Ranking Explorative RankingExploitative Ranking A B D E F C G D A B E query TeamDraft Interleave Radlinski, F., Kurup, M., & Joachims, T. (2008). How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? In CIKM ’08.
- 23. Interleaved Ranking Explorative RankingExploitative Ranking AB D E F C G D B E query TeamDraft Interleave Radlinski, F., Kurup, M., & Joachims, T. (2008). How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? In CIKM ’08.
- 24. Interleaved Ranking A B E C G D query TeamDraft Interleave Radlinski, F., Kurup, M., & Joachims, T. (2008). How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? In CIKM ’08.
- 25. Interleaved Ranking A B E C G D query TeamDraft Interleave Radlinski, F., Kurup, M., & Joachims, T. (2008). How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? In CIKM ’08. note: the interleaving method is NOT part of DBGD, it just provides feedback
- 26. query wAuthor wTopic Explorative RankerExploitative Ranker wAuthor wTopic G Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent [Yue et al, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2011]
- 27. query wAuthor wTopic Explorative RankerExploitative Ranker wAuthor wTopic G Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent [Yue et al, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2011]
- 28. query Exploitative Ranker wAuthor wTopic G Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent [Yue et al, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2011]
- 29. Online Evaluation @dodijk -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% Online Learning A/B Test Lift in articles read Days →
- 31. User Cold Start @dodijk + Newspapers RankerWeight inScore 0% 50% 100% Articles Read 0 5 Onboarding Reading 5% lift in articles read
- 37. @dodijkBlendle Relevance Foryou ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Diversification
- 38. @dodijkBlendle Breaking Bubbles Editorial selection Must reads Diversification Little effect of popularity Filter Bubbles Foryou MustReads Making Bubbles Onboarding Reading history Explicit feedback
- 39. Timing problem • Our editors wake up at 5am and are done reading at 7am • Which is also when we want to send our newsletter • We simply can’t wait for a batch process
- 40. @dodijk article published articles enrich article enrich article enrich article articles updates persist update articles picks editor picks article create pick update picked articles article features article features users user article features user article features ranker A ranker B ranker Z user article scores persist scorescores filled nightly witha batch process scores arriveafter seconds #users x #updates = 200M #users x #updates x #rankers = 600M #updates = 200
- 41. personalize bundle @dodijk scores editor sends newsletter newsletters users select users user newsletters personalized newsletter send newsletter computed realtime filled with abatch process #newsletters = 1 #newsletters x #users = 1M #newsletters x #users = 1M ~7am ~7.15am personalizepersonalize bundle experimentation
- 42. Cold start problem • So we enrich our content
- 43. Timing problem • So we precompute as much as possible
- 44. Explanations: #FATREC Why this article? Because you seem to like a long read article every now and then. @dodijk