4.6 Article

A Survey of Music Similarity and Recommendation from Music Context Data

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/2542205.2542206

关键词

Algorithms; Music information retrieval; music context; music similarity; music recommendation; survey

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P22856-N23, P25655]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P22856] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 22856] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this survey article, we give an overview of methods for music similarity estimation and music recommendation based on music context data. Unlike approaches that rely on music content and have been researched for almost two decades, music-context-based (or contextual) approaches to music retrieval are a quite recent field of research within music information retrieval (MIR). Contextual data refers to all music-relevant information that is not included in the audio signal itself. In this article, we focus on contextual aspects of music primarily accessible through web technology. We discuss different sources of context-based data for individual music pieces and for music artists. We summarize various approaches for constructing similarity measures based on the collaborative or cultural knowledge incorporated into these data sources. In particular, we identify and review three main types of context-based similarity approaches: text-retrieval-based approaches (relying on web-texts, tags, or lyrics), co-occurrence-based approaches (relying on playlists, page counts, microblogs, or peer-to-peer-networks), and approaches based on user ratings or listening habits. This article elaborates the characteristics of the presented context-based measures and discusses their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Categories and Subject Descriptors: A. 1 [Introductory and Survey]; H.5.5 [Information Interfaces and Presentation (e. g., HCI)]: Sound and Music Computing; I.2.6 [Artificial Intelligence]: Learning

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据