Saturday, August 18, 2012
paper "Online Dating Recommender Systems: The Split-complex Number Approach"
In a previous post I had written about "The PLAGUE of recommender systems for the Online Dating Industry"
Now there is a new paper: "Online Dating Recommender Systems: The Split-complex Number Approach", useless at all for the Online Dating Industry because:
- it does not assess personality of daters.
- and can not break the online dating sound barrier.
That paper will be presented at 4th ACM RecSys Workshop on Recommender Systems & the Social Web
Recommender systems (a.k.a recommendation engines) can be based on:
- past actions (as the formerly Beacon at Facebook)
- a pattern of personal preferences (by collaborative filtering, as the actual one at Facebook) The main disadvantage with recommendation engines based on
collaborative filtering is when users instead of providing their personal preference try to guess the global preference and they introduce bias in the recommendation algorithm.
- personality traits of users.
Personality Based Recommender Systems are the next generation of recommender systems because they perform FAR better than Behavioural ones
(past actions and pattern of personal preferences)
That is the only way to improve recommender systems, to include the personality traits of their users.
Have you seen they need to calculate personality similarity between users?
Have you seen there are different formulas to calculate similarity?
In case you did not notice, recommender systems are morphing to .......... compatibility matching engines!!!
They mostly use the Big5 to assess personality and the Pearson correlation coefficient to calculate similarity.
PLEASE DO REMEMBER:
In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
1) to objectively measure personality traits or other human variables (with the 16PF5 test).
2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates, have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own. [in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened]
* That is because they use:
a) simplified versions of personality traits, instead of the 16PF5 or similar with the complete inventory (16 variables)
b) inadequate quantitative methods to calculate compatibility between prospective mates, like eHarmony which uses Dyadic Adjustment Scale or other sites which use multivariate linear / logistic regression equations o other equations.
The 3 milestone discoveries of the 2001 – 2010 decade for Theories of Romantic Relationships Development are:
I) Several studies showing contraceptive pills users make different mate choices, on average, compared to non-users. “Only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle”
II) People often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life. (Behavioural recommender systems or other system that learns your preferences are useless)
III) What is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy. Compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
Also there is a similarity trilogy between genetic, mate choice and personality based recommender systems.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 to assess personality of its members!
but no one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method!
but no one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members!
but no one is scientifically proven!
but no one can show you a list of compatible persons like this:
( for a prospective male customer / sample but calculated with real values)
“Over 1,000,000 million women database, here is the list of the 12 more compatible with you. Notice that woman#1 is the most compatible with you but she could be more compatible with other men right now.
woman#01 is 95.58476277% compatible
woman#02 is 95.56224356% compatible
woman#03 is 95.52998273% compatible
woman#04 is 94.18354278% compatible
woman#05 is 93.00453871% compatible
woman#06 is 93.00007524% compatible
woman#07 is 92.99738452% compatible
woman#08 is 92.37945551% compatible
woman#09 is 92.29779173% compatible
woman#10 is 92.27114287% compatible
woman#11 is 92.19515551% compatible
woman#12 is 92.12249558% compatible”
Please also read:
An exercise of similarity.
How LIFEPROJECT METHOD calculates similarity