Cited by 99Recommender Systems and TechniquesMobile and Web ApplicationsInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Personalized Mobile App Recommendation: Reconciling App Functionality and User Privacy Preference

Liu, Bin, Kong, Deguang, Cen, Lei, Gong, Neil Zhenqiang, Jin, Hongxia, Xiong, Hui·2015·Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed a rapid adoption of mobile devices and a dramatic proliferation of mobile applications (Apps for brevity). However, the large number of mobile Apps makes it difficult for users to locate relevant Apps. Therefore, recommending Apps becomes an urgent task. Traditional recommendation approaches focus on learning the interest of a user and the functionality of an item (e.g., an App) from a set of user-item ratings, and they recommend an item to a user if the item's functionality well matches the user's interest. However, Apps could have privileges to access a user's sensitive resources ( e.g., contact, message, and location). As a result, a user chooses an App not only because of its functionality, but also because it respects the user's privacy preference. To the best of our knowledge, this paper presents the first systematic study on incorporating both interest-functionality interactions and users' privacy preferences to perform personalized App recommendations. Specifically, we first construct a new model to capture the trade-off between functionality and user privacy preference. Then we crawled a real-world dataset (16,344 users, 6,157 Apps, and 263,054 ratings) from Google Play and use it to comprehensively evaluate our model and previous methods. We find that our method consistently and substantially outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches, which implies the importance of user privacy preference on personalized App recommendations. Moreover,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2684822.2685322

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Liu et al. (2015), Gu et al. (2022), and Shahidi et al. (2022) produced evidence in favor of the privacy calculus theory by demonstrating that whether a user chooses to use an app is a result of the trade-off between the app's functionality or usefulness and the user's privacy concerns.

    “Liu et al. (2015), Gu et al. (2022), and Shahidi et al. (2022), for example, produced evidence in favor of the privacy calculus theory by demonstrating that whether a user chooses to use an app is a result of the trade-off between the app's functionality (or usefulness) and the user's privacy concerns.”

    From The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps (2022) · cites this paper as Liu et al. (2015)

  • The results from Study 1 suggest that the decision to install an app (and grant data access permissions as required) results from a trade-off between the app's functionality importance and the user's privacy concerns.

    “The results from Study 1 suggest that the decision to install an app (and grant data access permissions as required) results from a trade-off between the app's functionality importance and the user's privacy concerns (e.g., Dinev and Hart, 2006;Liu et al., 2015;Shahidi et al., 2022).”

    From The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps (2022) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, B., Kong, D., Cen, L., Gong, N. Z., Jin, H., & Xiong, H.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Samsung Research America, San Jose, CA, USA
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-02-02
Pages
315-324
OpenAlex
W2017281925
Cited by
98
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
FWCI
13.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile and Web Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
mobile app recommendation, personalized recommendation, privacy preferences, user privacy, sensitive data access, Google Play Store, user ratings

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