Advertisement

Explicit and Implicit User Preferences in Online Dating

  • Joshua Akehurst
  • Irena Koprinska
  • Kalina Yacef
  • Luiz Pizzato
  • Judy Kay
  • Tomasz Rej
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7104)

Abstract

In this paper we study user behavior in online dating, in particular the differences between the implicit and explicit user preferences. The explicit preferences are stated by the user while the implicit preferences are inferred based on the user behavior on the website. We first show that the explicit preferences are not a good predictor of the success of user interactions. We then propose to learn the implicit preferences from both successful and unsuccessful interactions using a probabilistic machine learning method and show that the learned implicit preferences are a very good predictor of the success of user interactions. We also propose an approach that uses the explicit and implicit preferences to rank the candidates in our recommender system. The results show that the implicit ranking method is significantly more accurate than the explicit and that for a small number of recommendations it is comparable to the performance of the best method that is not based on user preferences.

Keywords

Explicit and implicit user preferences online dating recommender systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kim, Y.S., Mahidadia, A., Compton, P., Cai, X., Bain, M., Krzywicki, A., Wobcke, W.: People Recommendation Based on Aggregated Bidirectional Intentions in Social Network Site. In: Kang, B.-H., Richards, D. (eds.) PKAW 2010. LNCS, vol. 6232, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cai, X., Bain, M., Krzywicki, A., Wobcke, W., Kim, Y.S., Compton, P., Mahidadia, A.: Collaborative Filtering for People to People Recommendation in Social Networks. In: Li, J. (ed.) AI 2010. LNCS, vol. 6464, pp. 476–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McFee, B., Lanckriet, G.R.G.: Metric Learning to Rank. In: 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diaz, F., Metzler, D., Amer-Yahia, S.: Relevance and Ranking in Online Dating Systems. In: 33rd Int. Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pp. 66–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pizzato, L., Rej, T., Chung, T., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., Kay, J.: Learning User Preferences in Online Dating. In: European Conf. on Machine Learning and Priciples and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML-PKDD), Preference Learning Workshop (2010) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akehurst, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., Pizzato, L., Kay, J., Rej, T.: A Hybrid Content-Collaborative Reciprocal Recommender for Online Dating. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI ( in press, 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kohavi, R.: Scaling Up the Accuracy of Naive-Bayes Classifiers: a Decision-Tree Hybrid. In: 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Databases, KDD (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cao, L.: In-depth Behavior Understanding and Use: the Behavior Informatics Approach. Information Science 180(17), 3067–3085 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Akehurst
    • 1
  • Irena Koprinska
    • 1
  • Kalina Yacef
    • 1
  • Luiz Pizzato
    • 1
  • Judy Kay
    • 1
  • Tomasz Rej
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information TechnologiesUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations