The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering
Open accessAbstract
Collaborative filtering or recommender systems use a database about user preferences to predict additional topics or products a new user might like. In this paper we describe several algorithms designed for this task, including techniques based on correlation coefficients, vector-based similarity calculations, and statistical Bayesian methods. We compare the predictive accuracy of the various methods in a set of representative problem domains. We use two basic classes of evaluation metrics. The first characterizes accuracy over a set of individual predictions in terms of average absolute deviation. The second estimates the utility of a ranked list of suggested items. This metric uses an estimate of the probability that a user will see a recommendation in an ordered list. Experiments were run for datasets associated with 3 application areas, 4 experimental protocols, and the 2 evaluation metrics for the various algorithms. Results indicate that for a wide range of conditions, Bayesian networks with decision trees at each node and correlation methods outperform Bayesian-clustering and vector-similarity methods. Between correlation and Bayesian networks, the preferred method depends on the nature of the dataset, nature of the application (ranked versus one-by-one presentation), and the availability of votes with which to make predictions. Other considerations include the size of database, speed of predictions, and learning time.
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
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
Cited by
Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms
Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., & Riedl, J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/371920.372071 · Cited by 9,135
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
Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering
Linden, G., Smith, B., & York, J. (2003) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2003.1167344 · Cited by 5,403
Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems
Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J., & Sen, S. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_9 · Cited by 2,120
SimRank: a measure of structural-context similarity
Jeh, G., & Widom, J. (2002) · Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/775047.775126 · Cited by 1,925
Metadata
- Authors
- Breese, J. S., Heckerman, D. E., & Kadie, C. M.
- Venue
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2013
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1301.7363
- OpenAlex
- W2110325612
- Cited by
- 4,772
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.1301.7363
- The paper
- Breese, J. S., Heckerman, D. E., & Kadie, C. M. (2013). Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1301.7363
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.