Diversity, Serendipity, Novelty, and Coverage: A Survey and Empirical Analysis of Beyond-Accuracy Objectives in Recommender Systems
Abstract
What makes a good recommendation or good list of recommendations? Research into recommender systems has traditionally focused on accuracy, in particular how closely the recommender’s predicted ratings are to the users’ true ratings. However, it has been recognized that other recommendation qualities—such as whether the list of recommendations is diverse and whether it contains novel items—may have a significant impact on the overall quality of a recommender system. Consequently, in recent years, the focus of recommender systems research has shifted to include a wider range of “beyond accuracy” objectives. In this article, we present a survey of the most discussed beyond-accuracy objectives in recommender systems research: diversity, serendipity, novelty, and coverage. We review the definitions of these objectives and corresponding metrics found in the literature. We also review works that propose optimization strategies for these beyond-accuracy objectives. Since the majority of works focus on one specific objective, we find that it is not clear how the different objectives relate to each other. Hence, we conduct a set of offline experiments aimed at comparing the performance of different optimization approaches with a view to seeing how they affect objectives other than the ones they are optimizing. We use a set of state-of-the-art recommendation algorithms optimized for recall along with a number of reranking strategies for optimizing the diversity, novelty, and serendipity…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Users exhibit a preference for recommendations of previously experienced items, as familiarity can reinforce trust in a system.
“Users exhibit a preference for recommendations of previously experienced items, as Kaminskas and Bridge (2016) highlighted”
From AdaptUI: A Framework for the development of Adaptive User Interfaces in Smart Product-Service Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Kaminskas and Bridge (2016)
Cites
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Personality Bias of Music Recommendation Algorithms
Melchiorre, A. B., Zangerle, E., & Schedl, M. (2020) · Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3383313.3412223 · Cited by 48
Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, R., & Jiang, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102755 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Slokom, M., Hanjalic, A., & Larson, M. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102722 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Carrera-Rivera, A., Larrinaga, F., Lasa, G., Martinez-Arellano, G., & Unamuno, G. (2024) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-024-09414-0 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kaminskas, M., & Bridge, D.
- Affiliations
- University College Cork (IE)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
- Published
- 2016-12-19
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-42
- ISSN
- 2160-6455 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-6463
- OpenAlex
- W2562236173
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 9 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 61.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Science Foundation Ireland (SFI/12/RC/2289)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Keywords
- recommender systems, recommendation diversity, serendipity, novelty, recommendation coverage
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