Relevance and ranking in online dating systems

Match-making systems refer to systems where users want to meet other individuals to satisfy some underlying need. Examples of match-making systems include dating services, resume/job bulletin boards, community based question answering, and consumer-to-consumer marketplaces. One fundamental component of a match-making system is the retrieval and ranking of candidate matches for a given user. We present the first in-depth study of information retrieval approaches applied to match-making systems. Specifically, we focus on retrieval for a dating service. This domain offers several unique problems not found in traditional information retrieval tasks. These include two-sided relevance, very subjective relevance, extremely few relevant matches, and structured queries. We propose a machine learned ranking function that makes use of features extracted from the uniquely rich user profiles that consist of both structured and unstructured attributes. An extensive evaluation carried out using data gathered from a real online dating service shows the benefits of our proposed methodology with respect to traditional match-making baseline systems. Our analysis also provides deep insights into the aspects of match-making that are particularly important for producing highly relevant matches.

[1]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[2]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Refining Keyword Queries for XML Retrieval by Combining Content and Structure , 2009, ECIR.

[3]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[4]  Sharad Mehrotra,et al.  Efficient Query Refinement in Multimedia Databases , 2000, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Data Engineering (Cat. No.00CB37073).

[5]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[6]  Geneva G. Belford,et al.  Multi-aspect expertise matching for review assignment , 2008, CIKM '08.

[7]  Robert W. Irving An Efficient Algorithm for the "Stable Roommates" Problem , 1985, J. Algorithms.

[8]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  FALCON: Feedback Adaptive Loop for Content-Based Retrieval , 2000, VLDB.

[9]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? , 2008, CIKM '08.

[10]  Olivier Chapelle,et al.  Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance , 2009, CIKM.

[11]  James Allan,et al.  Information Retrieval On Empty Fields , 2007, NAACL.

[12]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  Probabilistic Ranking of Database Query Results , 2004, VLDB.

[13]  Krisztian Balog,et al.  People search in the enterprise , 2007, SIGF.

[14]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  Probabilistic information retrieval approach for ranking of database query results , 2006, TODS.

[15]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  It’s Not You, it’s Me: Detecting Flirting and its Misperception in Speed-Dates , 2009, EMNLP.

[16]  Sharad Mehrotra,et al.  An Approach to Integrating Query Refinement in SQL , 2002, EDBT.

[17]  ChengXiang Zhai,et al.  Constrained multi-aspect expertise matching for committee review assignment , 2009, CIKM.

[18]  Olivier Chapelle,et al.  A dynamic bayesian network click model for web search ranking , 2009, WWW '09.

[19]  James Allan,et al.  Matching resumes and jobs based on relevance models , 2007, SIGIR.

[20]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval , 2011 .

[21]  Nick Craswell,et al.  An experimental comparison of click position-bias models , 2008, WSDM '08.

[22]  Hongyuan Zha,et al.  A General Boosting Method and its Application to Learning Ranking Functions for Web Search , 2007, NIPS.

[23]  Ben Carterette,et al.  Evaluating Search Engines by Modeling the Relationship Between Relevance and Clicks , 2007, NIPS.

[24]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  A Probabilistic Retrieval Model for Semistructured Data , 2009, ECIR.

[25]  Ali Hortacsu,et al.  What Makes You Click: An Empirical Analysis of Online Dating ⁄ , 2005 .