Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Paolo Dragone

dblp:172/1275 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 4 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 4 · 3 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
5 papers
Recommender systems · 82% Data mining · 18%
Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 32% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 32% Reinforcement learning · 28%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Recommender systems
preference elicitation
0.932018
Constructive Preference Elicitation Over Hybrid Combinatorial Spaces · AAAI 2018
Decomposition Strategies for Constructive Preference Elicitation · AAAI 2018
Coactive Critiquing: Elicitation of Preferences and Features · AAAI 2017
Data mining › clustering
co-clustering
0.412019
Deriving User- and Content-specific Rewards for Contextual Bandits · WWW 2019
Recommender systems › sequential decision making
contextual bandit recommendation
0.412019
Deriving User- and Content-specific Rewards for Contextual Bandits · WWW 2019
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › concept learning
constructive learning
0.312018
Pyconstruct: Constraint Programming Meets Structured Prediction · IJCAI 2018
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
structured prediction
0.312018
Pyconstruct: Constraint Programming Meets Structured Prediction · IJCAI 2018
Mathematical optimization
combinatorial optimization
0.312018
Decomposition Strategies for Constructive Preference Elicitation · AAAI 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › preference learning
coactive learning
0.312017
Coactive Critiquing: Elicitation of Preferences and Features · AAAI 2017
Recommender systems
music recommendation
0.112019
Deriving User- and Content-specific Rewards for Contextual Bandits · WWW 2019
Mathematical optimization
constraint programming
0.112018
Pyconstruct: Constraint Programming Meets Structured Prediction · IJCAI 2018
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › social choice › computational social choice
preference elicitation
0.112017
Constructive Recommendation · IJCAI 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

max-margin learning · 0.7decomposition · 0.7constraint programming · 0.7coactive learning · 0.7utility function learning · 0.6regret bound analysis · 0.6feature space extension · 0.6combinatorial optimization · 0.6contextual bandit · 0.4co-clustering · 0.4regret analysis · 0.3perceptron · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Deriving User- and Content-specific Rewards for Contextual Bandits
abstract
Bandit algorithms have gained increased attention in recommender systems, as they provide effective and scalable recommendations. These algorithms use reward functions, usually based on a numeric variable such as click-through rates, as the basis for optimization. On a popular music streaming service, a contextual bandit algorithm is used to decide which content to recommend to users, where the reward function is a binarization of a numeric variable that defines success based on a static threshold of user streaming time: 1 if the user streamed for at least 30 seconds and 0 otherwise. We explore alternative methods to provide a more informed reward function, based on the assumptions that streaming time distribution heavily depends on the type of user and the type of content being streamed. To automatically extract user and content groups from streaming data, we employ ”co-clustering”, an unsupervised learning technique to simultaneously extract clusters of rows and columns from a co-occurrence matrix. The streaming distributions within the co-clusters are then used to define rewards specific to each co-cluster. Our proposed co-clustered based reward functions lead to improvement of over 25% in expected stream rate, compared to the standard binarized rewards.
Paolo Dragone, Rishabh Mehrotra, Mounia Lalmas-Roelleke
WWW1
2018 Decomposition Strategies for Constructive Preference Elicitation
abstract
We tackle the problem of constructive preference elicitation, that is the problem of learning user preferences over verylarge decision problems, involving a combinatorial space of possible outcomes. In this setting, the suggested configuration is synthesized on-the-fly by solving a constrained optimization problem, while the preferences are learned iteratively by interacting with the user. Previous work has shown that Coactive Learning is a suitable method for learning userpreferences in constructive scenarios. In Coactive Learning the user provides feedback to the algorithm in the form of an improvement to a suggested configuration. When the problem involves many decision variables and constraints, this type of interaction poses a significant cognitive burden on the user. We propose a decomposition technique for large preference-based decision problems relying exclusively on inference and feedback over partial configurations. This has the clear advantage of drastically reducing the user cognitive load. Additionally, part-wise inference can be (up to exponentially) less computationally demanding than inference over full configurations. We discuss the theoretical implications of working with parts and present promising empirical results on one synthetic and two realistic constructive problems.
Paolo Dragone, Stefano Teso, Mohit Kumar 0003, Andrea Passerini
AAAI1
2018 Constructive Preference Elicitation Over Hybrid Combinatorial Spaces
abstract
Peference elicitation is the task of suggesting a highly preferred configuration to a decision maker. The preferences are typically learned by querying the user for choice feedback over pairs or sets of objects. In its constructive variant, new objects are synthesized "from scratch" by maximizing an estimate of the user utility over a combinatorial (possibly infinite) space of candidates. In the constructive setting, most existing elicitation techniques fail because they rely on exhaustive enumeration of the candidates. A previous solution explicitly designed for constructive tasks comes with no formal performance guarantees, and can be very expensive in (or unapplicable to) problems with non-Boolean attributes. We propose the Choice Perceptron, a Perceptron-like algorithm for learning user preferences from set-wise choice feedback over constructive domains and hybrid Boolean-numeric feature spaces. We provide a theoretical analysis on the attained regret that holds for a large class of query selection strategies, and devise a heuristic strategy that aims at optimizing the regret in practice. Finally, we demonstrate its effectiveness by empirical evaluation against existing competitors on constructive scenarios of increasing complexity.
Paolo Dragone, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini
AAAI1
2018 Pyconstruct: Constraint Programming Meets Structured Prediction
abstract
Constructive learning is the task of learning to synthesize structured objects from data. Examples range from classical sequence labeling to layout synthesis and drug design. Learning in these scenarios involves repeatedly synthesizing candidates subject to feasibility constraints and adapting the model based on the observed loss. Many synthesis problems of interest are non-standard: they involve discrete and continuous variables as well as arbitrary constraints among them. In these cases, widespread formalisms (like linear programming) can not be applied, and the developer is left with writing her own ad-hoc solver. This can be very time consuming and error prone. We introduce Pyconstruct, a Python library tailored for solving real-world constructive problems with minimal effort. The library leverages max-margin approaches to decouple learning from synthesis and constraint programming as a generic framework for synthesis. Pyconstruct enables easy prototyping of working solutions, allowing developers to write complex synthesis problems in a declarative fashion in few lines of code. The library is available at: http://bit.ly/2st8nt3
Paolo Dragone, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini
IJCAI1
2018 Automating Layout Synthesis with Constructive Preference Elicitation
Luca Erculiani, Paolo Dragone, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini
ECML/PKDD (3)2
2018 No more ready-made deals: constructive recommendation for telco service bundling
abstract
We propose a new recommendation system for service and product bundling in the domain of telecommunication and multimedia. Using this system, users can easily generate a combined service plan that best suits their needs within a vast range of candidates. The system exploits the recent constructive preference elicitation framework, which allows us to flexibly model the exponentially large domain of bundle offers as an implicitly defined set of variables and constraints. The user preferences are modeled by a utility function estimated via coactive learning interaction, while iteratively generating high-utility recommendations through constraint optimization. In this paper, we detail the structure of our system, as well as the methodology and results of an empirical validation study which involved more than 130 participants. The system turned out to be highly usable with respect to both time and number of interactions, and its outputs were found much more satisfactory than those obtained with standard techniques used in the market.
Paolo Dragone, Giovanni Pellegrini, Michele Vescovi, Katya Tentori, Andrea Passerini
RecSys1
2017 Coactive Critiquing: Elicitation of Preferences and Features
abstract
When faced with complex choices, users refine their own preference criteria as they explore the catalogue of options. In this paper we propose an approach to preference elicitation suited for this scenario. We extend Coactive Learning, which iteratively collects manipulative feedback, to optionally query example critiques. User critiques are integrated into the learning model by dynamically extending the feature space. Our formulation natively supports constructive learning tasks, where the option catalogue is generated on-the-fly. We present an upper bound on the average regret suffered bythe learner. Our empirical analysis highlights the promise of our approach.
Stefano Teso, Paolo Dragone, Andrea Passerini
AAAI2
2017 Constructive Recommendation
abstract
Constructive recommendation is the task of recommending object “configurations”, i.e. objects that can be assembled from their components on the basis of the user preferences. Examples include: PC configurations, recipes, travel plans, layouts, and other structured objects. Recommended objects are created by maximizing a learned utility function over an exponentially (or even infinitely) large combinatorial space of configurations. The utility function is learned through preference elicitation, an interactive process for collecting user feedback about recommended objects. Constructive recommendation brings up a wide range of possible applications as well as many untackled research problems, ranging from the unprecedented complexity of the inference problem to the nontrivial choice of the type of user interaction.
Paolo Dragone
IJCAI1
2017 Constructive Recommendation
abstract
Constructive recommendation is the task of recommending object "configurations", i.e. objects that can be assembled from their components on the basis of the user preferences. Examples include: PC configurations, recipes, travel plans, layouts, and other structured objects. Recommended objects are created by maximizing a learned utility function over an exponentially (or even infinitely) large combinatorial space of configurations. The utility function is learned through preference elicitation, an interactive process for collecting user feedback about recommended objects. Constructive recommendation systems can help users make good decisions over complex configuration spaces. Our goal is to adapt existing machine learning techniques, or devise new ones, in order to build recommendation systems suitable for constructive tasks.
Paolo Dragone
RecSys1