The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Novelty and Diversity in Top-N Recommendation -- Analysis and Evaluation
Abstract
For recommender systems that base their product rankings primarily on a measure of similarity between items and the user query, it can often happen that products on the recommendation list are highly similar to each other and lack diversity. In this article we argue that the motivation of diversity research is to increase the probability of retrieving unusual or novel items which are relevant to the user and introduce a methodology to evaluate their performance in terms of novel item retrieval. Moreover, noting that the retrieval of a set of items matching a user query is a common problem across many applications of information retrieval, we formulate the trade-off between diversity and matching quality as a binary optimization problem, with an input control parameter allowing explicit tuning of this trade-off. We study solution strategies to the optimization problem and demonstrate the importance of the control parameter in obtaining desired system performance. The methods are evaluated for collaborative recommendation using two datasets and case-based recommendation using a synthetic dataset constructed from the public-domain Travel dataset.
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
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
Introduction to Information Retrieval
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809071 · Cited by 11,288
Metadata
- Authors
- Hurley, N., & Zhang, M.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1-30
- ISSN
- 1533-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-6051
- OpenAlex
- W1967787801
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 36.07
- Type
- journal article
- 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
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.