Podcasting is an increasingly popular medium for entertainment and discourse around the world, with tens of thousands of new podcasts released on a monthly basis. We consider the problem of identifying from these newly released podcasts those with the largest potential audiences so they can be considered for personalized recommendation to users. We first study and then discard a supervised approach due to the inadequacy of either content or consumption features for this task and instead propose a novel non-contextual bandit algorithm in the fixed-budget infinitely armed pure-exploration setting. We demonstrate that our algorithm is well suited to the best-arm identification task for a broad class of arm reservoir distributions, out-competing a large number of state-of-the-art algorithms. We then apply the algorithm to identifying podcasts with broad appeal in a simulated study and show that it efficiently sorts podcasts into groups by increasing appeal while avoiding the popularity bias inherent in supervised approaches. Finally, we study a setting in which users are more likely to stream more-streamed podcasts independent of their general appeal and find that our proposed algorithm is robust to this type of popularity bias. 1

Short- and long-term outcomes of an algorithm often differ, with damaging downstream effects. A known example is a click-bait algorithm, which may increase short-term clicks but damage long-term user engagement. A possible solution to estimate the long-term outcome is to run an online experiment or A/B test for the potential algorithms, but it takes months or even longer to observe the long-term outcomes of interest, making the algorithm selection process unacceptably slow. This work thus studies the problem of feasibly yet accurately estimating the long-term outcome of an algorithm using only historical and short-term experiment data. Existing approaches to this problem either need a restrictive assumption about the short-term outcomes called surrogacy or cannot effectively use short-term outcomes, which is inefficient. Therefore, we propose a new framework called Long-term Off-Policy Evaluation (LOPE), which is based on reward function decomposition. LOPE works under a more relaxed assumption than surrogacy and effectively leverages short-term rewards to substantially reduce the variance. Synthetic experiments show that LOPE outperforms existing approaches particularly when surrogacy is severely violated and the long-term reward is noisy. In addition, real-world experiments on large-scale A/B test data collected on a music streaming platform show that LOPE can estimate the long-term outcome of actual algorithms more accurately than existing feasible methods.

Calibration in recommender systems has recently gained significant attention. In the recommended list of items, calibration ensures that the various (past) areas of interest of a user are reflected with their corresponding proportions. For instance, if a user has watched, say, 80 romance movies and 20 action movies, then it is reasonable to expect the recommended list of movies to be comprised of about 80% romance and 20% action movies as well. Calibration is particularly important given that optimizing towards accuracy often leads to the user's minority interests being dominated by their main interests, or by a few overall popular items, in the recommendations they receive. In this paper, we propose a novel approach based on the max flow problem for generating calibrated recommendations. In a series of experiments using two publicly available datasets, we demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed approach compared to the state-of-the-art in generating relevant and calibrated recommendation lists.

Podcasting is an increasingly popular medium for entertainment and discourse around the world, with tens of thousands of new podcasts released on a monthly basis. We consider the problem of identifying from these newly-released podcasts those with the largest potential audiences so they can be considered for personalized recommendation to users. We first study and then discard a supervised approach due to the inadequacy of either content or consumption features for this task, and instead propose a novel non-contextual bandit algorithm in the fixed-budget infinitely-armed pure-exploration setting. We demonstrate that our algorithm is well-suited to the best-arm identification task for a broad class of arm reservoir distributions, out-competing a large number of state-of-the-art algorithms. We then apply the algorithm to identifying podcasts with broad appeal in a simulated study, and show that it efficiently sorts podcasts into groups by increasing appeal while avoiding the popularity bias inherent in supervised approaches.

The TREC 2012 Crowdsourcing track asked participants to crowdsource relevance assessments with the goal of replicating costly expert judgements with relatively fast, inexpensive, but less reliable judgements from anonymous online workers. The track used 10 "ad-hoc" queries, highly specific and complex (as compared to web search). The crowdsourced assessments were evaluated against expert judgments made by highly trained and capable human analysts in 1999 as part of ad hoc track collection construction. Since most crowdsourcing approaches submitted to the TREC 2012 track produced assessment sets nowhere close to the expert judgements, we decided to analyze crowdsourcing mistakes made on this task using data we collected via Amazon's Mechanical Turk service. We investigate two types of crowdsourcing approaches: one that asks for nominal relevance grades for each document, and the other that asks for preferences on many (not all) pairs of documents.

High quality relevance judgments are essential for the evaluation of information retrieval systems. Traditional methods of collecting relevance judgments are based on collecting binary or graded nominal judgments, but such judgments are limited by factors such as inter-assessor disagreement and the arbitrariness of grades. Previous research has shown that it is easier for assessors to make pairwise preference judgments. However, unless the preferences collected are largely transitive, it is not clear how to combine them in order to obtain document relevance scores. Another difficulty is that the number of pairs that need to be assessed is quadratic in the number of documents. In this work, we consider the problem of inferring document relevance scores from pairwise preference judgments by analogy to tournaments using the Elo rating system. We show how to combine a linear number of pairwise preference judgments from multiple assessors to compute relevance scores for every document.