Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating Recommendation Systems

Shani, Guy, Gunawardana, Asela·2011·Recommender Systems Handbook
DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_8

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Bamber, D.: The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 12, 387–415 (1975) · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bonhard, P., Harries, C., McCarthy, J., Sasse, M.A.: Accounting for taste: using profile similarity to improve recommender systems. In: CHI ’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pp. 1057–1066. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1124772.1124930 · DOI
  3. Boutilier, C., Zemel, R.S.: Online queries for collaborative filtering. In: In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (2002)
  4. Box, G.E.P., Hunter,W.G., Hunter, J.S.: Statistics for Experimenters. Wiley, New York (1978)
  5. Bradley, K., Smyth, B.: Improving recommendation diversity. In: Twelfth Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, pp. 85–94 (2001)
  6. Braziunas, D., Boutilier, C.: Local utility elicitation in GAI models. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 42–49. Edinburgh (2005)
  7. Breese, J.S., Heckerman, D., Kadie, C.M.: Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In: UAI, pp. 43–52 (1998)
  8. Celma, O., Herrera, P.: A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations. In: RecSys ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems, pp. 179–186. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1454008.1454038 · DOI
  9. Chirita, P.A., Nejdl, W., Zamfir, C.: Preventing shilling attacks in online recommender systems. In: WIDM ’05: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM international workshop on Web information and data management, pp. 67–74. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2005). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1097047.1097061 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Das, A.S., Datar, M., Garg, A., Rajaram, S.: Google news personalization: scalable online collaborative filtering. In: WWW ’07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 271–280. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1242572.1242610 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Demšar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006)
  12. Deshpande, M., Karypis, G.: Item-based top-N recommendation algorithms. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 22(1), 143–177 (2004) · DOI · Paper page
  13. Fischer, G.: User modeling in human-computer interaction. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 11(1-2), 65–86 (2001) · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fleder, D.M., Hosanagar, K.: Recommender systems and their impact on sales diversity. In: EC ’07: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 192–199. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1250910.1250939 · DOI
  15. Frankowski, D., Cosley, D., Sen, S., Terveen, L., Riedl, J.: You are what you say: privacy risks of public mentions. In: SIGIR ’06: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pp. 565–572. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1148170.1148267 · DOI
  16. Fredricks, G.A., Nelsen, R.B.: On the relationship between spearman’s rho and kendall’s tau for pairs of continuous random variables. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137(7), 2143–2150 (2007) · DOI
  17. George, T.: A scalable collaborative filtering framework based on co-clustering. In: Fifth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 625–628 (2005) · DOI · Paper page
  18. Greenwald, A.G.: Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin 83, 216–229 (1976)
  19. Haddawy, P., Ha, V., Restificar, A., Geisler, B., Miyamoto, J.: Preference elicitation via theory refinement. Journal of Machine Learning Research 4, 2003 (2002)
  20. Herlocker, J.L., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, J.T.: An empirical analysis of design choices in neighborhood-based collaborative filtering algorithms. Inf. Retr. 5(4), 287–310 (2002). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020443909834 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Herlocker, J.L., Konstan, J.A., Terveen, L.G., Riedl, J.T.: Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 5–53 (2004). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/963770.963772 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hijikata, Y., Shimizu, T., Nishida, S.: Discovery-oriented collaborative filtering for improving user satisfaction. In: IUI ’09: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pp. 67–76. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1502650.1502663 · DOI
  23. Hu, R., Pu, P.: A comparative user study on rating vs. personality quiz based preference elicitation methods. In: IUI ´09: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pp. 367–372. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1502650.1502702 · DOI
  24. Jones, N., Pu, P.: User technology adoption issues in recommender systems. In: Networking and Electronic Conference (2007)
  25. Karypis, G.: Evaluation of item-based top-n recommendation algorithms. In: CIKM ’01: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management, pp. 247–254. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2001). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/502585.502627 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kendall, M.G.: A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1–2), 81–93 (1938) · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kendall, M.G.: The treatment of ties in ranking problems. Biometrika 33(3), 239–251 (1945) · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kohavi, R., Longbotham, R., Sommerfield, D., Henne, R.M.: Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 18(1), 140–181 (2009). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10618-008-0114-1 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Konstan, J.A., McNee, S.M., Ziegler, C.N., Torres, R., Kapoor, N., Riedl, J.: Lessons on applying automated recommender systems to information-seeking tasks. In: AAAI (2006)
  30. Koychev, I., Schwab, I.: Adaptation to drifting user’s interests. In: In Proceedings of ECML2000 Workshop: Machine Learning in New Information Age, pp. 39–46 (2000)
  31. Lam, S.K., Frankowski, D., Riedl, J.: Do you trust your recommendations? an exploration of security and privacy issues in recommender systems. In: In Proceedings of the 2006 Interna296 Guy Shani and Asela Gunawardana tional Conference on Emerging Trends in Information and Communication Security (ETRICS (2006) · DOI
  32. Lam, S.K., Riedl, J.: Shilling recommender systems for fun and profit. In: WWW ’04: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 393–402. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2004). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/988672.988726 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Mahmood, T., Ricci, F.: Learning and adaptivity in interactive recommender systems. In: ICEC ’07: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 75–84. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1282100.1282114 · DOI
  34. Marlin, B.M., Zemel, R.S., Roweis, S., Slaney, M.: Collaborative filtering and the missing at random assumption. In: Proceedings of the 23rd COnference on Uncertainity in Artificial Intelligence (2007)
  35. Massa, P., Bhattacharjee, B.: Using trust in recommender systems: An experimental analysis. In: In Proceedings of iTrust2004 International Conference, pp. 221–235 (2004) · DOI · Paper page
  36. McLaughlin, M.R., Herlocker, J.L.: A collaborative filtering algorithm and evaluation metric that accurately model the user experience. In: SIGIR ’04: Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pp. 329–336. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2004). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1008992.1009050 · DOI
  37. McNee, S.M., Riedl, J., Konstan, J.A.: Making recommendations better: an analytic model for human-recommender interaction. In: CHI ’06: CHI ’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 1103–1108. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1125451.1125660 · DOI
  38. McSherry, F., Mironov, I.: Differentially private recommender systems: building privacy into the netflix prize contenders. In: KDD ’09: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 627–636. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1557019.1557090 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Mobasher, B., Burke, R., Bhaumik, R., Williams, C.: Toward trustworthy recommender systems: An analysis of attack models and algorithm robustness. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 7(4), 23 (2007). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1278366.1278372 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Murakami, T., Mori, K., Orihara, R.: Metrics for evaluating the serendipity of recommendation lists. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4914, 40–46 (2008) · DOI
  41. O’Mahony, M., Hurley, N., Kushmerick, N., Silvestre, G.: Collaborative recommendation: A robustness analysis. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 4(4), 344–377 (2004). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1031114.1031116 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Pfleeger, S.L., Kitchenham, B.A.: Principles of survey research. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 26(6), 16–18 (2001). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/505532.505535 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Queiroz, S.: Adaptive preference elicitation for top-k recommendation tasks using gainetworks. In: AIAP’07: Proceedings of the 25th conference on Proceedings of the 25th IASTED International Multi-Conference, pp. 579–584. ACTA Press, Anaheim, CA, USA (2007)
  44. Salzberg, S.L.: On comparing classifiers: Pitfalls toavoid and a recommended approach. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 1(3), 317–328 (1997). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009752403260 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., Reidl, J.: Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In:WWW’01: Proceedings of the 10th international conference onWorld Wide Web, pp. 285–295. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2001). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/371920.372071 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Analysis of recommendation algorithms for e-commerce. In: EC ’00: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pp. 158–167. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2000). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/352871.352887 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Schein, A.I., Popescul, A., Ungar, L.H., Pennock, D.M.: Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations. In: SIGIR ’02: Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pp. 253–260. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/564376.564421 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Shani, G., Chickering, D.M., Meek, C.: Mining recommendations from the web. In: RecSys ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 35–42 (2008) · DOI
  49. Shani, G., Heckerman, D., Brafman, R.I.: An mdp-based recommender system. Journal of Machine Learning Research 6, 1265–1295 (2005)
  50. Smyth, B., McClave, P.: Similarity vs. diversity. In: ICCBR, pp. 347–361 (2001) · DOI · Paper page
  51. Swearingen, K., Sinha, R.: Beyond algorithms: An hci perspective on recommender systems. In: ACM SIGIR 2001 Workshop on Recommender Systems (2001)
  52. Van Rijsbergen, C.J.: Information Retrieval. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, USA (1979). URL http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=539927
  53. Voorhees, E.M.: Overview of trec 2002. In: In Proceedings of the 11th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2002), NIST Special Publication 500-251, pp. 1–15 (2002) · DOI
  54. Voorhees, E.M.: The philosophy of information retrieval evaluation. In: CLEF ’01: Revised Papers from the Second Workshop of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum on Evaluation of Cross-Language Information Retrieval Systems, pp. 355–370. Springer-Verlag, London, UK (2002) · DOI · Paper page
  55. Yao, Y.Y.: Measuring retrieval effectiveness based on user preference of documents. J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sys 46(2), 133–145 (1995) · DOI
  56. Zhang, M., Hurley, N.: Avoiding monotony: improving the diversity of recommendation lists. In: RecSys ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems, pp. 123–130. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1454008.1454030 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Zhang, Y., Callan, J., Minka, T.: Novelty and redundancy detection in adaptive filtering. In: SIGIR ’02: Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pp. 81–88. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002).DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/564376.564393 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Ziegler, C.N., McNee, S.M., Konstan, J.A., Lausen, G.: Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In: WWW ´05: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 22–32. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2005). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1060745.1060754 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shani, G., & Gunawardana, A.
Venue
Recommender Systems Handbook
Publisher
Springer US
Published
2010-10-05
Pages
257-297
DOI
10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_8
OpenAlex
W2108630796
Cited by
1,325
References
5
FWCI
126.85
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.