Cited by 196Recommender Systems and TechniquesOnline Learning and AnalyticsAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Course Recommendation in MOOCs

Open access
Zhang, Jing, Hao, Bowen, Chen, Bo, Li, Cuiping, Chen, Hong, Sun, Jimeng·2019·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

The proliferation of massive open online courses (MOOCs) demands an effective way of personalized course recommendation. The recent attention-based recommendation models can distinguish the effects of different historical courses when recommending different target courses. However, when a user has interests in many different courses, the attention mechanism will perform poorly as the effects of the contributing courses are diluted by diverse historical courses. To address such a challenge, we propose a hierarchical reinforcement learning algorithm to revise the user profiles and tune the course recommendation model on the revised profiles.Systematically, we evaluate the proposed model on a real dataset consisting of 1,302 courses, 82,535 users and 458,454 user enrolled behaviors, which were collected from XuetangX—one of the largest MOOCs in China. Experimental results show that the proposed model significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art recommendation models (improving 5.02% to 18.95% in terms of HR@10).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301435

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kabbur, S.; Ning, X.; and Karypis, G. 2013. Fism: factored item similarity models for top-n recommender systems. In SIGKDD'13, 659-667.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, J., Hao, B., Chen, B., Li, C., Chen, H., & Sun, J.
Affiliations
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2019-07-17
Volume
33
Issue
01
Pages
435-442
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W2905101140
Cited by
196
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3
FWCI
16.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61702522,, 61532021, 61772536, 61772537)
  • Renmin University of China
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Keywords
course recommendation, MOOCs, hierarchical reinforcement learning, personalized recommendation

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