The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations
Abstract
This paper presents two methods, named Item- and User-centric, to evaluate the quality of novel recommendations. The former method focuses on analyzing the item-based recommendation network. The aim is to detect whether the network topology has any pathology that hinders novel recommendations. The latter, user-centric evaluation, aims at measuring users' perceived quality of novel, previously unknown, recommendations.The results of the experiments, done in the music recommendation context, show that last.fm social recommender, based on collaborative filtering, is prone to popularity bias. This has direct consequences on the topology of the item-based recommendation network. Pure audio content-based methods (CB) are not affected by popularity. However, a user-centric experiment done with 288 subjects shows that even though a social-based approach recommends less novel items than our CB, users' perceived quality is better than those recommended by a pure CB method.
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
Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms
Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., & Riedl, J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/371920.372071 · Cited by 9,135
The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2783 · Cited by 2,869
Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1121066 · Cited by 2,231 · cited 1×
“Although, as shown in [15] popularity is only partly determined by quality.”
Background
Cited by
Rank and relevance in novelty and diversity metrics for recommender systems
Vargas, S., & Castells, P. (2011) · Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems · doi:10.1145/2043932.2043955 · Cited by 709
Recommender systems based on user reviews: the state of the art
Chen, L., Chen, G., & Wang, F. (2015) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-015-9155-5 · Cited by 403
Evaluating Recommender Systems: Survey and Framework
Zangerle, E., & Bauer, C. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3556536 · Cited by 283
Evaluating Recommender Systems
Gunawardana, A., & Shani, G. (2015) · Recommender Systems Handbook · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_8 · Cited by 283
How good your recommender system is? A survey on evaluations in recommendation
Silveira, T., Zhang, M., Lin, X., Liu, Y., & Ma, S. (2019) · International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/s13042-017-0762-9 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Celma, Ò., & Herrera, P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-10-23
- Pages
- 179-186
- OpenAlex
- W2011700584
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.61
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1454008.1454038
- The paper
- Celma, Ò., & Herrera, P. (2008). A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1454008.1454038
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.