The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How good your recommender system is? A survey on evaluations in recommendation
Open accessAbstract
Recommender Systems have become a very useful tool for a large variety of domains. Researchers have been attempting to improve their algorithms in order to issue better predictions to the users. However, one of the current challenges in the area refers to how to properly evaluate the predictions generated by a recommender system. In the extent of offline evaluations, some traditional concepts of evaluation have been explored, such as accuracy, Root Mean Square Error and P@N for top-k recommendations. In recent years, more research have proposed some new concepts such as novelty, diversity and serendipity. These concepts have been addressed with the goal to satisfy the users’ requirements. Numerous definitions and metrics have been proposed in previous work. On the absence of a specific summarization on evaluations of recommendation combining traditional metrics and recent progresses, this paper surveys and organizes the main research that present definitions about concepts and propose metrics or strategies to evaluate recommendations. In addition, this survey also settles the relationship between the concepts, categorizes them according to their objectives and suggests potential future topics on user satisfaction.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2005.99 · Cited by 10,310
Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems
Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., Terveen, L. G., & Riedl, J. T. (2004) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/963770.963772 · Cited by 5,798
(2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3 · Cited by 3,761
Bobadilla, J., Ortega, F., Hernando, A., & Gutiérrez, A. (2013) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2013.03.012 · Cited by 3,158
Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification
Ziegler, C.-N., McNee, S. M., Konstan, J. A., & Lausen, G. (2005) · Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '05 · doi:10.1145/1060745.1060754 · Cited by 1,892
The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation
Gomez-Uribe, C. A., & Hunt, N. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems · doi:10.1145/2843948 · Cited by 1,418
Evaluating Recommendation Systems
Shani, G., & Gunawardana, A. (2011) · Recommender Systems Handbook · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_8 · Cited by 1,325
Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems
McNee, S. M., Riedl, J., & Konstan, J. A. (2006) · CHI '06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1125451.1125659 · Cited by 1,066
Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems
Zhou, T., Kuscsik, Z., Liu, J.-G., Medo, M., Wakeling, J. R., & Zhang, Y.-C. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1000488107 · Cited by 972
Cited by
Huang, J., Oosterhuis, H., de Rijke, M., & van Hoof, H. (2020) · Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3383313.3412252 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Silveira, T., Zhang, M., Lin, X., Liu, Y., & Ma, S.
- Venue
- International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics
- Published
- 2017-12-14
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 813-831
- ISSN
- 1868-8071 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-808X
- OpenAlex
- W2774321216
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 18.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How good your recommender system is? A survey on evaluations in recommendation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s13042-017-0762-9
- The paper
- Silveira, T., Zhang, M., Lin, X., Liu, Y., & Ma, S. (2019). How good your recommender system is? A survey on evaluations in recommendation. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-017-0762-9
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.