The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On Unexpectedness in Recommender Systems: Or How to Better Expect the Unexpected
Abstract
Although the broad social and business success of recommender systems has been achieved across several domains, there is still a long way to go in terms of user satisfaction. One of the key dimensions for significant improvement is the concept of unexpectedness . In this article, we propose a method to improve user satisfaction by generating unexpected recommendations based on the utility theory of economics. In particular, we propose a new concept of unexpectedness as recommending to users those items that depart from what they would expect from the system - the consideration set of each user. We define and formalize the concept of unexpectedness and discuss how it differs from the related notions of novelty, serendipity, and diversity. In addition, we suggest several mechanisms for specifying the users’ expectations and propose specific performance metrics to measure the unexpectedness of recommendation lists. We also take into consideration the quality of recommendations using certain utility functions and present an algorithm for providing users with unexpected recommendations of high quality that are hard to discover but fairly match their interests. Finally, we conduct several experiments on “real-world” datasets and compare our recommendation results with other methods. The proposed approach outperforms these baseline methods in terms of unexpectedness and other important metrics, such as coverage, aggregate diversity and dispersion, while avoiding any accuracy loss.
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
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. (., & Simester, D. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1371 · Cited by 847
Second workshop on information heterogeneity and fusion in recommender systems (HetRec2011)
Cantador, I., Brusilovsky, P., & Kuflik, T. (2011) · Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems · doi:10.1145/2043932.2044016 · Cited by 355
Cited by
Kaminskas, M., & Bridge, D. (2017) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/2926720 · Cited by 465
Serendipity in Recommender Systems: A Systematic Literature Review
Ziarani, R. J., & Ravanmehr, R. (2021) · Journal of Computer Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s11390-020-0135-9 · Cited by 123
Deep Learning Models for Serendipity Recommendations: A Survey and New Perspectives
Fu, Z., Niu, X., & Maher, M. L. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3605145 · Cited by 30
User Bias in Beyond-Accuracy Measurement of Recommendation Algorithms
Wang, N., & Chen, L. (2021) · Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3460231.3474244 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Adamopoulos, P., & Tuzhilin, A.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology
- Published
- 2014-12-18
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 2157-6904 (ISSN-L)
- 2157-6912
- OpenAlex
- W2009718036
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 49.93
- 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.