The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rank and relevance in novelty and diversity metrics for recommender systems
Open accessAbstract
The Recommender Systems community is paying increasing attention to novelty and diversity as key qualities beyond accuracy in real recommendation scenarios. Despite the raise of interest and work on the topic in recent years, we find that a clear common methodological and conceptual ground for the evaluation of these dimensions is still to be consolidated. Different evaluation metrics have been reported in the literature but the precise relation, distinction or equivalence between them has not been explicitly studied. Furthermore, the metrics reported so far miss important properties such as taking into consideration the ranking of recommended items, or whether items are relevant or not, when assessing the novelty and diversity of recommendations.
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
Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems
Koren, Y., Bell, R., & Volinsky, C. (2009) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2009.263 · Cited by 11,673
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
Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering
Breese, J. S., Heckerman, D. E., & Kadie, C. M. (2013) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.7363 · Cited by 4,772
The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries
Carbonell, J., & Goldstein, J. (1998) · Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/290941.291025 · Cited by 2,329
The Use of MMR, Diversity-Based Reranking for Reordering Documents and Producing Summaries
Carbonell, J., & Goldstein, J. (2017) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/3130348.3130369 · Cited by 2,156
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
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
Agrawal, R., Gollapudi, S., Halverson, A., & Ieong, S. (2009) · Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/1498759.1498766 · Cited by 1,020
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
Novelty and diversity in information retrieval evaluation
Clarke, C. L. A., Kolla, M., Cormack, G. V., Vechtomova, O., Ashkan, A., Büttcher, S., & MacKinnon, I. (2008) · Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1390334.1390446 · Cited by 962
Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance
Chapelle, O., Metlzer, D., Zhang, Y., & Grinspan, P. (2009) · Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/1645953.1646033 · Cited by 832
Blockbuster Culture's Next Rise or Fall: The Impact of Recommender Systems on Sales Diversity
Fleder, D., & Hosanagar, K. (2009) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0974 · Cited by 745
Improving Aggregate Recommendation Diversity Using Ranking-Based Techniques
Adomavicius, G., & Kwon, Y. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2011.15 · Cited by 675
Rank-biased precision for measurement of retrieval effectiveness
Moffat, A., & Zobel, J. (2008) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/1416950.1416952 · Cited by 620
Learning diverse rankings with multi-armed bandits
Radlinski, F., Kleinberg, R., & Joachims, T. (2008) · Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning - ICML '08 · doi:10.1145/1390156.1390255 · Cited by 503
Avoiding monotony: improving the diversity of recommendation lists
Zhang, M., & Hurley, N. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems · doi:10.1145/1454008.1454030 · Cited by 456
Temporal diversity in recommender systems
Lathia, N., Hailes, S., Capra, L., & Amatriain, X. (2010) · Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1835449.1835486 · Cited by 318
A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations
Celma, Ò., & Herrera, P. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems · doi:10.1145/1454008.1454038 · Cited by 215
System effectiveness, user models, and user utility: a conceptual framework for investigation
Carterette, B. (2011) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/2009916.2010037 · Cited by 156
A comparative analysis of cascade measures for novelty and diversity
Clarke, C. L. A., Craswell, N., Soboroff, I. M., & Ashkan, A. (2011) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/1935826.1935847 · Cited by 124
Intent-oriented diversity in recommender systems
Vargas, S., Castells, P., & Vallet, D. (2011) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/2009916.2010124 · Cited by 97
Self-citationCharacterizing search intent diversity into click models
Hu, B. A., Zhang, Y., Chen, W., Wang, G., & Yang, Q. (2011) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1963405.1963412 · Cited by 64
A study of heterogeneity in recommendations for a social music service
Bellogín, A., Cantador, I., & Castells, P. (2010) · International Workshop on Information Heterogeneity and Fusion in Recommender Systems (HetRec) · doi:10.1145/1869446.1869447 · Cited by 47
Self-citation
Cited by
Bobadilla, J., Ortega, F., Hernando, A., & Gutiérrez, A. (2013) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2013.03.012 · Cited by 3,158
Kaminskas, M., & Bridge, D. (2017) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/2926720 · Cited by 465
Time-aware recommender systems: a comprehensive survey and analysis of existing evaluation protocols
Campos, P. G., Díez, F., & Cantador, I. (2014) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-012-9136-x · Cited by 437
News recommender systems – Survey and roads ahead
Karimi, M., Jannach, D., & Jugovac, M. (2018) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018.04.008 · Cited by 336
Multistakeholder recommendation: Survey and research directions
Abdollahpouri, H., Adomavicius, G., Burke, R., Guy, I., Jannach, D., Kamishima, T., Krasnodebski, J., & Pizzato, L. (2020) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-019-09256-1 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Vargas, S., & Castells, P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-10-23
- Pages
- 109-116
- OpenAlex
- W2144807535
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 23.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
