Recommender system

A recommender system, or a recommendation system (sometimes replacing 'system' with a synonym

such as platform or engine), is a subclass of information filtering system that provide suggestions for items
that are most pertinent to a particular user.[1][2] Typically, the suggestions refer to various decision-making
processes, such as what product to purchase, what music to listen to, or what online news to read.[1]
Recommender systems are particularly useful when an individual needs to choose an item from a
potentially overwhelming number of items that a service may offer.[1][3]

Recommender systems are used in a variety of areas, with commonly recognised examples taking the form
of playlist generators for video and music services, product recommenders for online stores, or content
recommenders for social media platforms and open web content recommenders.[4][5] These systems can
operate using a single input, like music, or multiple inputs within and across platforms like news, books and
search queries. There are also popular recommender systems for specific topics like restaurants and online
dating. Recommender systems have also been developed to explore research articles and experts,[6]
collaborators,[7] and financial services.[8]

Overview
Recommender systems usually make use of either or both collaborative filtering and content-based filtering
(also known as the personality-based approach),[9] as well as other systems such as knowledge-based
systems. Collaborative filtering approaches build a model from a user's past behavior (items previously
purchased or selected and/or numerical ratings given to those items) as well as similar decisions made by
other users. This model is then used to predict items (or ratings for items) that the user may have an interest
in.[10] Content-based filtering approaches utilize a series of discrete, pre-tagged characteristics of an item in
order to recommend additional items with similar properties.[11]

We can demonstrate the differences between collaborative and content-based filtering by comparing two
early music recommender systems – Last.fm and Pandora Radio.

Last.fm creates a "station" of recommended songs by observing what bands and individual
tracks the user has listened to on a regular basis and comparing those against the listening
behavior of other users. Last.fm will play tracks that do not appear in the user's library, but
are often played by other users with similar interests. As this approach leverages the
behavior of users, it is an example of a collaborative filtering technique.[12]
Pandora uses the properties of a song or artist (a subset of the 400 attributes provided by the
Music Genome Project) to seed a "station" that plays music with similar properties. User
feedback is used to refine the station's results, deemphasizing certain attributes when a user
"dislikes" a particular song and emphasizing other attributes when a user "likes" a song.
This is an example of a content-based approach.

Each type of system has its strengths and weaknesses. In the above example, Last.fm requires a large
amount of information about a user to make accurate recommendations. This is an example of the cold start
problem, and is common in collaborative filtering systems.[13][14][15][16][17][18] Whereas Pandora needs
very little information to start, it is far more limited in scope (for example, it can only make
recommendations that are similar to the original seed).
Recommender systems are a useful alternative to search algorithms since they help users discover items
they might not have found otherwise. Of note, recommender systems are often implemented using search
engines indexing non-traditional data.

Recommender systems have been the focus of several granted patents. [19][20][21][22][23]

History
Elaine Rich created 1979 unknowingly the first recommender systems Grundy.[24][25] She looked for a
way to recommend a user a book she might like. Her idea was to create a system that asks the user specific
questions and assigns her stereotypes depending on her answers. Depending on a users stereotype, she
would then get a recommendation for a book she might like.

The first actual mention of recommender System was in a technical report as a "digital bookshelf" in 1990
by Jussi Karlgren at Columbia University,[26] and implemented at scale and worked through in technical
reports and publications from 1994 onwards by Jussi Karlgren, then at SICS,[27]a [28] and research groups
led by Pattie Maes at MIT,[29] Will Hill at Bellcore,[30] and Paul Resnick, also at MIT[31] [3] whose work
with GroupLens was awarded the 2010 ACM Software Systems Award.

Montaner provided the first overview of recommender systems from an intelligent agent perspective.[32]
Adomavicius provided a new, alternate overview of recommender systems.[33] Herlocker provides an
additional overview of evaluation techniques for recommender systems,[34] and Beel et al. discussed the
problems of offline evaluations.[35] Beel et al. have also provided literature surveys on available research
paper recommender systems and existing challenges.[36][37]

Approaches

Collaborative filtering

One approach to the design of recommender systems that has wide

use is collaborative filtering.[38] Collaborative filtering is based on
the assumption that people who agreed in the past will agree in the
future, and that they will like similar kinds of items as they liked in
the past. The system generates recommendations using only
information about rating profiles for different users or items. By
locating peer users/items with a rating history similar to the current
user or item, they generate recommendations using this
neighborhood. Collaborative filtering methods are classified as
memory-based and model-based. A well-known example of
memory-based approaches is the user-based algorithm,[39] while
that of model-based approaches is Matrix factorization An example of collaborative filtering
based on a rating system
(recommender systems).[40]

A key advantage of the collaborative filtering approach is that it

does not rely on machine analyzable content and therefore it is capable of accurately recommending
complex items such as movies without requiring an "understanding" of the item itself. Many algorithms
have been used in measuring user similarity or item similarity in recommender systems. For example, the k-
nearest neighbor (k-NN) approach[41] and the Pearson Correlation as first implemented by Allen.[42]
When building a model from a user's behavior, a distinction is often made between explicit and implicit
forms of data collection.

Examples of explicit data collection include the following:

Asking a user to rate an item on a sliding scale.

Asking a user to search.
Asking a user to rank a collection of items from favorite to least favorite.
Presenting two items to a user and asking him/her to choose the better one of them.
Asking a user to create a list of items that he/she likes (see Rocchio classification or other
similar techniques).

Examples of implicit data collection include the following:

Observing the items that a user views in an online store.

Analyzing item/user viewing times.[43]
Keeping a record of the items that a user purchases online.
Obtaining a list of items that a user has listened to or watched on his/her computer.
Analyzing the user's social network and discovering similar likes and dislikes.

Collaborative filtering approaches often suffer from three problems: cold start, scalability, and sparsity.[44]

Cold start: For a new user or item, there isn't enough data to make accurate
recommendations. Note: one commonly implemented solution to this problem is the Multi-
armed bandit algorithm.[45][13][14][16][18]
Scalability: There are millions of users and products in many of the environments in which
these systems make recommendations. Thus, a large amount of computation power is often
necessary to calculate recommendations.
Sparsity: The number of items sold on major e-commerce sites is extremely large. The most
active users will only have rated a small subset of the overall database. Thus, even the most
popular items have very few ratings.

One of the most famous examples of collaborative filtering is item-to-item collaborative filtering (people
who buy x also buy y), an algorithm popularized by Amazon.com's recommender system.[46]

Many social networks originally used collaborative filtering to recommend new friends, groups, and other
social connections by examining the network of connections between a user and their friends.[1]
Collaborative filtering is still used as part of hybrid systems.

Content-based filtering

Another common approach when designing recommender systems is content-based filtering. Content-
based filtering methods are based on a description of the item and a profile of the user's preferences.[47][48]
These methods are best suited to situations where there is known data on an item (name, location,
description, etc.), but not on the user. Content-based recommenders treat recommendation as a user-specific
classification problem and learn a classifier for the user's likes and dislikes based on an item's features.

In this system, keywords are used to describe the items, and a user profile is built to indicate the type of
item this user likes. In other words, these algorithms try to recommend items similar to those that a user
liked in the past or is examining in the present. It does not rely on a user sign-in mechanism to generate this
often temporary profile. In particular, various candidate items are compared with items previously rated by
the user, and the best-matching items are recommended. This approach has its roots in information retrieval
and information filtering research.

To create a user profile, the system mostly focuses on two types of information:

1. A model of the user's preference.

2. A history of the user's interaction with the recommender system.

Basically, these methods use an item profile (i.e., a set of discrete attributes and features) characterizing the
item within the system. To abstract the features of the items in the system, an item presentation algorithm is
applied. A widely used algorithm is the tf–idf representation (also called vector space representation).[49]
The system creates a content-based profile of users based on a weighted vector of item features. The
weights denote the importance of each feature to the user and can be computed from individually rated
content vectors using a variety of techniques. Simple approaches use the average values of the rated item
vector while other sophisticated methods use machine learning techniques such as Bayesian Classifiers,
cluster analysis, decision trees, and artificial neural networks in order to estimate the probability that the
user is going to like the item.[50]

A key issue with content-based filtering is whether the system can learn user preferences from users' actions
regarding one content source and use them across other content types. When the system is limited to
recommending content of the same type as the user is already using, the value from the recommendation
system is significantly less than when other content types from other services can be recommended. For
example, recommending news articles based on news browsing is useful. Still, it would be much more
useful when music, videos, products, discussions, etc., from different services, can be recommended based
on news browsing. To overcome this, most content-based recommender systems now use some form of the
hybrid system.

Content-based recommender systems can also include opinion-based recommender systems. In some cases,
users are allowed to leave text reviews or feedback on the items. These user-generated texts are implicit
data for the recommender system because they are potentially rich resources of both feature/aspects of the
item and users' evaluation/sentiment to the item. Features extracted from the user-generated reviews are
improved meta-data of items, because as they also reflect aspects of the item like meta-data, extracted
features are widely concerned by the users. Sentiments extracted from the reviews can be seen as users'
rating scores on the corresponding features. Popular approaches of opinion-based recommender system
utilize various techniques including text mining, information retrieval, sentiment analysis (see also
Multimodal sentiment analysis) and deep learning.[51]

Hybrid recommendations approaches

Most recommender systems now use a hybrid approach, combining collaborative filtering, content-based
filtering, and other approaches. There is no reason why several different techniques of the same type could
not be hybridized. Hybrid approaches can be implemented in several ways: by making content-based and
collaborative-based predictions separately and then combining them; by adding content-based capabilities
to a collaborative-based approach (and vice versa); or by unifying the approaches into one model (see[33]
for a complete review of recommender systems). Several studies that empirically compare the performance
of the hybrid with the pure collaborative and content-based methods and demonstrated that the hybrid
methods can provide more accurate recommendations than pure approaches. These methods can also be
used to overcome some of the common problems in recommender systems such as cold start and the
sparsity problem, as well as the knowledge engineering bottleneck in knowledge-based approaches.[52]
Netflix is a good example of the use of hybrid recommender systems.[53] The website makes
recommendations by comparing the watching and searching habits of similar users (i.e., collaborative
filtering) as well as by offering movies that share characteristics with films that a user has rated highly
(content-based filtering).

Some hybridization techniques include:

Weighted: Combining the score of different recommendation components numerically.

Switching: Choosing among recommendation components and applying the selected one.
Mixed: Recommendations from different recommenders are presented together to give the
recommendation.
Feature Combination: Features derived from different knowledge sources are combined
together and given to a single recommendation algorithm.[54]
Feature Augmentation: Computing a feature or set of features, which is then part of the
input to the next technique.[54]
Cascade: Recommenders are given strict priority, with the lower priority ones breaking ties
in the scoring of the higher ones.
Meta-level: One recommendation technique is applied and produces some sort of model,
which is then the input used by the next technique.[55]

Technologies

Session-based recommender systems

These recommender systems use the interactions of a user within a session[56] to generate
recommendations. Session-based recommender systems are used at Youtube [57] and Amazon.[58] These
are particularly useful when history (such as past clicks, purchases) of a user is not available or not relevant
in the current user session. Domains, where session-based recommendations are particularly relevant,
include video, e-commerce, travel, music and more. Most instances of session-based recommender systems
rely on the sequence of recent interactions within a session without requiring any additional details
(historical, demographic) of the user. Techniques for session-based recommendations are mainly based on
generative sequential models such as Recurrent Neural Networks,[56][59] Transformers,[60] and other deep
learning based approaches[61][62]

Reinforcement learning for recommender systems

The recommendation problem can be seen as a special instance of a reinforcement learning problem
whereby the user is the environment upon which the agent, the recommendation system acts upon in order
to receive a reward, for instance, a click or engagement by the user.[57][63][64] One aspect of reinforcement
learning that is of particular use in the area of recommender systems is the fact that the models or policies
can be learned by providing a reward to the recommendation agent. This is in contrast to traditional
learning techniques which rely on supervised learning approaches that are less flexible, reinforcement
learning recommendation techniques allow to potentially train models that can be optimized directly on
metrics of engagement, and user interest.[65]

Multi-criteria recommender systems

Multi-criteria recommender systems (MCRS) can be defined as recommender systems that incorporate
preference information upon multiple criteria. Instead of developing recommendation techniques based on a
single criterion value, the overall preference of user u for the item i, these systems try to predict a rating for
unexplored items of u by exploiting preference information on multiple criteria that affect this overall
preference value. Several researchers approach MCRS as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
problem, and apply MCDM methods and techniques to implement MCRS systems.[66] See this chapter[67]
for an extended introduction.

Risk-aware recommender systems

The majority of existing approaches to recommender systems focus on recommending the most relevant
content to users using contextual information, yet do not take into account the risk of disturbing the user
with unwanted notifications. It is important to consider the risk of upsetting the user by pushing
recommendations in certain circumstances, for instance, during a professional meeting, early morning, or
late at night. Therefore, the performance of the recommender system depends in part on the degree to
which it has incorporated the risk into the recommendation process. One option to manage this issue is
DRARS, a system which models the context-aware recommendation as a bandit problem. This system
combines a content-based technique and a contextual bandit algorithm.[68]

Mobile recommender systems

Mobile recommender systems make use of internet-accessing smart phones to offer personalized, context-
sensitive recommendations. This is a particularly difficult area of research as mobile data is more complex
than data that recommender systems often have to deal with. It is heterogeneous, noisy, requires spatial and
temporal auto-correlation, and has validation and generality problems.[69]

There are three factors that could affect the mobile recommender systems and the accuracy of prediction
results: the context, the recommendation method and privacy.[70] Additionally, mobile recommender
systems suffer from a transplantation problem – recommendations may not apply in all regions (for
instance, it would be unwise to recommend a recipe in an area where all of the ingredients may not be
available).

One example of a mobile recommender system are the approaches taken by companies such as Uber and
Lyft to generate driving routes for taxi drivers in a city.[69] This system uses GPS data of the routes that taxi
drivers take while working, which includes location (latitude and longitude), time stamps, and operational
status (with or without passengers). It uses this data to recommend a list of pickup points along a route, with
the goal of optimizing occupancy times and profits.

The Netflix Prize

One of the events that energized research in recommender systems was the Netflix Prize. From 2006 to
2009, Netflix sponsored a competition, offering a grand prize of $1,000,000 to the team that could take an
offered dataset of over 100 million movie ratings and return recommendations that were 10% more accurate
than those offered by the company's existing recommender system. This competition energized the search
for new and more accurate algorithms. On 21 September 2009, the grand prize of US$1,000,000 was given
to the BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos team using tiebreaking rules.[71]
The most accurate algorithm in 2007 used an ensemble method of 107 different algorithmic approaches,
blended into a single prediction. As stated by the winners, Bell et al.:[72]

Predictive accuracy is substantially improved when blending multiple predictors. Our

experience is that most efforts should be concentrated in deriving substantially different
approaches, rather than refining a single technique. Consequently, our solution is an ensemble
of many methods.

Many benefits accrued to the web due to the Netflix project. Some teams have taken their technology and
applied it to other markets. Some members from the team that finished second place founded Gravity R&D,
a recommendation engine that's active in the RecSys community.[71][73] 4-Tell, Inc. created a Netflix
project–derived solution for ecommerce websites.

A number of privacy issues arose around the dataset offered by Netflix for the Netflix Prize competition.
Although the data sets were anonymized in order to preserve customer privacy, in 2007 two researchers
from the University of Texas were able to identify individual users by matching the data sets with film
ratings on the Internet Movie Database.[74] As a result, in December 2009, an anonymous Netflix user sued
Netflix in Doe v. Netflix, alleging that Netflix had violated United States fair trade laws and the Video
Privacy Protection Act by releasing the datasets.[75] This, as well as concerns from the Federal Trade
Commission, led to the cancellation of a second Netflix Prize competition in 2010.[76]

Evaluation

Performance measures

Evaluation is important in assessing the effectiveness of recommendation algorithms. To measure the

effectiveness of recommender systems, and compare different approaches, three types of evaluations are
available: user studies, online evaluations (A/B tests), and offline evaluations.[35]

The commonly used metrics are the mean squared error and root mean squared error, the latter having been
used in the Netflix Prize. The information retrieval metrics such as precision and recall or DCG are useful
to assess the quality of a recommendation method. Diversity, novelty, and coverage are also considered as
important aspects in evaluation.[77] However, many of the classic evaluation measures are highly
criticized.[78]

Evaluating the performance of a recommendation algorithm on a fixed test dataset will always be extremely
challenging as it is impossible to accurately predict the reactions of real users to the recommendations.
Hence any metric that computes the effectiveness of an algorithm in offline data will be imprecise.

User studies are rather a small scale. A few dozens or hundreds of users are presented recommendations
created by different recommendation approaches, and then the users judge which recommendations are
best.

In A/B tests, recommendations are shown to typically thousands of users of a real product, and the
recommender system randomly picks at least two different recommendation approaches to generate
recommendations. The effectiveness is measured with implicit measures of effectiveness such as conversion
rate or click-through rate.
Offline evaluations are based on historic data, e.g. a dataset that contains information about how users
previously rated movies.[79]

The effectiveness of recommendation approaches is then measured based on how well a recommendation
approach can predict the users' ratings in the dataset. While a rating is an explicit expression of whether a
user liked a movie, such information is not available in all domains. For instance, in the domain of citation
recommender systems, users typically do not rate a citation or recommended article. In such cases, offline
evaluations may use implicit measures of effectiveness. For instance, it may be assumed that a
recommender system is effective that is able to recommend as many articles as possible that are contained in
a research article's reference list. However, this kind of offline evaluations is seen critical by many
researchers.[80][81][82][35] For instance, it has been shown that results of offline evaluations have low
correlation with results from user studies or A/B tests.[82][83] A dataset popular for offline evaluation has
been shown to contain duplicate data and thus to lead to wrong conclusions in the evaluation of
algorithms.[84] Often, results of so-called offline evaluations do not correlate with actually assessed user-
satisfaction.[85] This is probably because offline training is highly biased toward the highly reachable items,
and offline testing data is highly influenced by the outputs of the online recommendation module.[80][86]
Researchers have concluded that the results of offline evaluations should be viewed critically.[87]

Beyond accuracy

Typically, research on recommender systems is concerned with finding the most accurate recommendation
algorithms. However, there are a number of factors that are also important.

Diversity – Users tend to be more satisfied with recommendations when there is a higher
intra-list diversity, e.g. items from different artists.[88][89]

Recommender persistence – In some situations, it is more effective to re-show

recommendations,[90] or let users re-rate items,[91] than showing new items. There are
several reasons for this. Users may ignore items when they are shown for the first time, for
instance, because they had no time to inspect the recommendations carefully.
Privacy – Recommender systems usually have to deal with privacy concerns[92] because
users have to reveal sensitive information. Building user profiles using collaborative filtering
can be problematic from a privacy point of view. Many European countries have a strong
culture of data privacy, and every attempt to introduce any level of user profiling can result in
a negative customer response. Much research has been conducted on ongoing privacy
issues in this space. The Netflix Prize is particularly notable for the detailed personal
information released in its dataset. Ramakrishnan et al. have conducted an extensive
overview of the trade-offs between personalization and privacy and found that the
combination of weak ties (an unexpected connection that provides serendipitous
recommendations) and other data sources can be used to uncover identities of users in an
anonymized dataset.[93]

User demographics – Beel et al. found that user demographics may influence how
satisfied users are with recommendations.[94] In their paper they show that elderly users
tend to be more interested in recommendations than younger users.
Robustness – When users can participate in the recommender system, the issue of fraud
must be addressed.[95]
Serendipity – Serendipity is a measure of "how surprising the recommendations are".[96][89]
For instance, a recommender system that recommends milk to a customer in a grocery store
might be perfectly accurate, but it is not a good recommendation because it is an obvious
item for the customer to buy. "[Serendipity] serves two purposes: First, the chance that users
 lose interest because the choice set is too uniform decreases. Second, these items are
needed for algorithms to learn and improve themselves".[97]
Trust – A recommender system is of little value for a user if the user does not trust the
system.[98] Trust can be built by a recommender system by explaining how it generates
recommendations, and why it recommends an item.
Labelling – User satisfaction with recommendations may be influenced by the labeling of
the recommendations.[99] For instance, in the cited study click-through rate (CTR) for
recommendations labeled as "Sponsored" were lower (CTR=5.93%) than CTR for identical
recommendations labeled as "Organic" (CTR=8.86%). Recommendations with no label
performed best (CTR=9.87%) in that study.

Reproducibility

Recommender systems are notoriously difficult to evaluate offline, with some researchers claiming that this
has led to a reproducibility crisis in recommender systems publications. The topic of reproducibility seems
to be a recurrent issue in some Machine Learning publication venues, but does not have a considerable
effect beyond the world of scientific publication. In the context of recommender systems a 2019 paper
surveyed a small number of hand-picked publications applying deep learning or neural methods to the top-k
recommendation problem, published in top conferences (SIGIR, KDD, WWW, RecSys, IJCAI), has
shown that on average less than 40% of articles could be reproduced by the authors of the survey, with as
little as 14% in some conferences. The articles considers a number of potential problems in today's research
scholarship and suggests improved scientific practices in that area.[100][101][102] More recent work on
benchmarking a set of the same methods came to qualitatively very different results[103] whereby neural
methods were found to be among the best performing methods. Deep learning and neural methods for
recommender systems have been used in the winning solutions in several recent recommender system
challenges, WSDM,[104] RecSys Challenge.[105] Moreover neural and deep learning methods are widely
used in industry where they are extensively tested.[106][57][58] The topic of reproducibility is not new in
recommender systems. By 2011, Ekstrand, Konstan, et al. criticized that "it is currently difficult to
reproduce and extend recommender systems research results,” and that evaluations are “not handled
consistently".[107] Konstan and Adomavicius conclude that "the Recommender Systems research
community is facing a crisis where a significant number of papers present results that contribute little to
collective knowledge […] often because the research lacks the […] evaluation to be properly judged and,
hence, to provide meaningful contributions."[108] As a consequence, much research about recommender
systems can be considered as not reproducible.[109] Hence, operators of recommender systems find little
guidance in the current research for answering the question, which recommendation approaches to use in a
recommender systems. Said & Bellogín conducted a study of papers published in the field, as well as
benchmarked some of the most popular frameworks for recommendation and found large inconsistencies in
results, even when the same algorithms and data sets were used.[110] Some researchers demonstrated that
minor variations in the recommendation algorithms or scenarios led to strong changes in the effectiveness of
a recommender system. They conclude that seven actions are necessary to improve the current
situation:[109] "(1) survey other research fields and learn from them, (2) find a common understanding of
reproducibility, (3) identify and understand the determinants that affect reproducibility, (4) conduct more
comprehensive experiments (5) modernize publication practices, (6) foster the development and use of
recommendation frameworks, and (7) establish best-practice guidelines for recommender-systems
research."

See also
Rating site Collaborative filtering
Cold start Collective intelligence
 Content discovery platform Personalized marketing
Enterprise bookmarking Preference elicitation
Filter bubble Product finder
ACM Conference on Recommender Configurator
Systems Pattern recognition

References
1. Ricci, Francesco; Rokach, Lior; Shapira, Bracha (2022). "Recommender Systems:
Techniques, Applications, and Challenges" (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-
0716-2197-4_1). In Ricci, Francesco; Rokach, Lior; Shapira, Bracha (eds.). Recommender
Systems Handbook (3 ed.). New York: Springer. pp. 1–35. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-
4_1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-0716-2197-4_1). ISBN 978-1-0716-2196-7.
2. "playboy Lead Rise of Recommendation Engines - TIME" (https://web.archive.org/web/2010
0530064045/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1992403,00.html).
TIME.com. 27 May 2010. Archived from the original (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/arti
cle/0,9171,1992403,00.html) on May 30, 2010. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
3. Resnick, Paul, and Hal R. Varian. "Recommender systems." Communications of the ACM
40, no. 3 (1997): 56-58.
4. Pankaj Gupta, Ashish Goel, Jimmy Lin, Aneesh Sharma, Dong Wang, and Reza Bosagh
Zadeh WTF:The who-to-follow system at Twitter (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2488433),
Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web
5. Baran, Remigiusz; Dziech, Andrzej; Zeja, Andrzej (2018-06-01). "A capable multimedia
content discovery platform based on visual content analysis and intelligent data enrichment"
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11042-017-5014-1). Multimedia Tools and Applications. 77
(11): 14077–14091. doi:10.1007/s11042-017-5014-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11042-01
7-5014-1). ISSN 1573-7721 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-7721). S2CID 36511631 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:36511631).
6. H. Chen, A. G. Ororbia II, C. L. Giles ExpertSeer: a Keyphrase Based Expert Recommender
for Digital Libraries (https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02058), in arXiv preprint 2015
7. H. Chen, L. Gou, X. Zhang, C. Giles Collabseer: a search engine for collaboration discovery
(http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.302.8659&rep=rep1&type=pdf),
in ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) 2011
8. Alexander Felfernig, Klaus Isak, Kalman Szabo, Peter Zachar, The VITA Financial Services
Sales Support Environment (http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2007/AAAI07-274.pdf), in
AAAI/IAAI 2007, pp. 1692-1699, Vancouver, Canada, 2007.
9. Hosein Jafarkarimi; A.T.H. Sim and R. Saadatdoost A Naïve Recommendation Model for
Large Databases (http://www.ijiet.org/show-31-222-1.html), International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, June 2012
10. Prem Melville and Vikas Sindhwani, Recommender Systems (http://www.prem-melville.com/
publications/recommender-systems-eml2010.pdf), Encyclopedia of Machine Learning, 2010.
11. R. J. Mooney & L. Roy (1999). Content-based book recommendation using learning for text
categorization. In Workshop Recom. Sys.: Algo. and Evaluation.
12. Haupt, Jon (2009-06-01). "Last.fm: People‐Powered Online Radio" (https://doi.org/10.1080/1
0588160902816702). Music Reference Services Quarterly. 12 (1–2): 23–24.
doi:10.1080/10588160902816702 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10588160902816702).
ISSN 1058-8167 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1058-8167). S2CID 161141937 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161141937).
13. ChenHung-Hsuan; ChenPu (2019-01-09). "Differentiating Regularization Weights -- A
Simple Mechanism to Alleviate Cold Start in Recommender Systems". ACM Transactions on
Knowledge Discovery from Data. 13: 1–22. doi:10.1145/3285954 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2
F3285954). S2CID 59337456 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59337456).
14. Rubens, Neil; Elahi, Mehdi; Sugiyama, Masashi; Kaplan, Dain (2016). "Active Learning in
Recommender Systems" (https://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6). In
Ricci, Francesco; Rokach, Lior; Shapira, Bracha (eds.). Recommender Systems Handbook
(2 ed.). Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_24 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-
4899-7637-6_24). ISBN 978-1-4899-7637-6.
15. Bobadilla, J.; Ortega, F.; Hernando, A.; Alcalá, J. (2011). "Improving collaborative filtering
recommender system results and performance using genetic algorithms" (https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.knosys.2011.06.005). Knowledge-Based Systems. 24 (8): 1310–1316.
doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.06.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.knosys.2011.06.005).
16. Elahi, Mehdi; Ricci, Francesco; Rubens, Neil (2016). "A survey of active learning in
collaborative filtering recommender systems" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303
781992). Computer Science Review. 20: 29–50. doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2016.05.002 (https://d
oi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cosrev.2016.05.002).
17. Andrew I. Schein, Alexandrin Popescul, Lyle H. Ungar, David M. Pennock (2002). Methods
and Metrics for Cold-Start Recommendations (https://archive.org/details/sigir2002proceed00
00inte/page/253). Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2002). : ACM. pp. 253–260 (http
s://archive.org/details/sigir2002proceed0000inte/page/253). ISBN 1-58113-561-0. Retrieved
2008-02-02.
18. Bi, Xuan; Qu, Annie; Wang, Junhui; Shen, Xiaotong (2017). "A group-specific recommender
system" (https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.2016.1219261). Journal
of the American Statistical Association. 112 (519): 1344–1353.
doi:10.1080/01621459.2016.1219261 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01621459.2016.121926
1). S2CID 125187672 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:125187672).
19. Stack, Charles. "System and method for providing recommendation of goods and services
based on recorded purchasing history (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/U
S6782370.pdf)." U.S. Patent 7,222,085, issued May 22, 2007.
20. Herz, Frederick SM. "Customized electronic newspapers and advertisements." U.S. Patent
7,483,871, issued January 27, 2009.
21. Herz, Frederick, Lyle Ungar, Jian Zhang, and David Wachob. "System and method for
providing access to data using customer profiles (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.c
om/3c/1b/54/5c6688e454a63a/US8056100.pdf)." U.S. Patent 8,056,100, issued November
8, 2011.
22. Harbick, Andrew V., Ryan J. Snodgrass, and Joel R. Spiegel. "Playlist-based detection of
similar digital works and work creators (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8468046B2/e
n)." U.S. Patent 8,468,046, issued June 18, 2013.
23. Linden, Gregory D., Brent Russell Smith, and Nida K. Zada. "Automated detection and
exposure of behavior-based relationships between browsable items (https://patentimages.st
orage.googleapis.com/3c/f6/13/d5f70fcdcf1b6d/US9070156.pdf)." U.S. Patent 9,070,156,
issued June 30, 2015.
24. BEEL, Joeran, et al. Paper recommender systems: a literature survey. International Journal
on Digital Libraries, 2016, 17. Jg., Nr. 4, S. 305-338.
25. RICH, Elaine. User modeling via stereotypes. Cognitive science, 1979, 3. Jg., Nr. 4, S. 329-
354.
26. Karlgren, Jussi. 1990. "An Algebra for Recommendations." Syslab Working Paper 179
(1990).
27. Karlgren, Jussi. "Newsgroup Clustering Based On User Behavior-A Recommendation
Algebra (http://soda.swedish-ict.se/2225/2/T94_04.pdf)." SICS Research Report (1994).
28. Karlgren, Jussi (October 2017). "A digital bookshelf: original work on recommender systems"
(https://jussikarlgren.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/a-digital-bookshelf-original-work-on-recom
mender-systems/). Retrieved 27 October 2017.
29. Shardanand, Upendra, and Pattie Maes. "Social information filtering: algorithms for
automating “word of mouth” (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.30.65
83&rep=rep1&type=pdf)." In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems, pp. 210-217. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1995.
30. Hill, Will, Larry Stead, Mark Rosenstein, and George Furnas. "Recommending and
evaluating choices in a virtual community of use (http://zhang.ist.psu.edu/teaching/501/readi
ngs/Hill.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20181221074205/http://zhang.ist.psu.ed
u/teaching/501/readings/Hill.pdf) 2018-12-21 at the Wayback Machine." In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 194-201. ACM
Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1995.
31. Resnick, Paul, Neophytos Iacovou, Mitesh Suchak, Peter Bergström, and John Riedl.
"GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews (https://sites.ualberta.
ca/~golmoham/SW/web%20mining%2023Jan2008/GroupLens%20An%20Open%20Archite
cture%20for%20Collaborating%20Filtering%20%20of%20Netnews.pdf)." In Proceedings of
the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp. 175-186. ACM,
1994.
32. Montaner, M.; Lopez, B.; de la Rosa, J. L. (June 2003). "A Taxonomy of Recommender
Agents on the Internet". Artificial Intelligence Review. 19 (4): 285–330.
doi:10.1023/A:1022850703159 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1022850703159).
S2CID 16544257 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16544257)..
33. Adomavicius, G.; Tuzhilin, A. (June 2005). "Toward the Next Generation of Recommender
Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions" (http://portal.acm.org/cita
tion.cfm?id=1070611.1070751). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.
17 (6): 734–749. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.107.2790 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summar
y?doi=10.1.1.107.2790). doi:10.1109/TKDE.2005.99 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTKDE.200
5.99). S2CID 206742345 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206742345)..
34. Herlocker, J. L.; Konstan, J. A.; Terveen, L. G.; Riedl, J. T. (January 2004). "Evaluating
collaborative filtering recommender systems". ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22 (1): 5–53.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.78.8384 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.78.83
84). doi:10.1145/963770.963772 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F963770.963772).
S2CID 207731647 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:207731647)..
35. Beel, J.; Genzmehr, M.; Gipp, B. (October 2013). "A Comparative Analysis of Offline and
Online Evaluations and Discussion of Research Paper Recommender System Evaluation"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160417222305/http://docear.org/papers/a_comparative_anal
ysis_of_offline_and_online_evaluations_and_discussion_of_research_paper_recommende
r_system_evaluation.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of the Workshop on Reproducibility and
Replication in Recommender Systems Evaluation (RepSys) at the ACM Recommender
System Conference (RecSys): 7–14. doi:10.1145/2532508.2532511 (https://doi.org/10.114
5%2F2532508.2532511). ISBN 9781450324656. S2CID 8202591 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:8202591). Archived from the original (http://docear.org/papers/a_comparativ
e_analysis_of_offline_and_online_evaluations_and_discussion_of_research_paper_recom
mender_system_evaluation.pdf) (PDF) on 2016-04-17. Retrieved 2013-10-22.
36. Beel, J.; Langer, S.; Genzmehr, M.; Gipp, B.; Breitinger, C. (October 2013). "Research Paper
Recommender System Evaluation: A Quantitative Literature Survey" (http://docear.org/paper
s/research_paper_recommender_system_evaluation--a_quantitative_literature_survey.pdf)
(PDF). Proceedings of the Workshop on Reproducibility and Replication in Recommender
Systems Evaluation (RepSys) at the ACM Recommender System Conference (RecSys).
doi:10.1145/2532508.2532512 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2532508.2532512).
S2CID 4411601 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4411601).
37. Beel, J.; Gipp, B.; Langer, S.; Breitinger, C. (26 July 2015). "Research Paper Recommender
Systems: A Literature Survey" (http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-311312).
International Journal on Digital Libraries. 17 (4): 305–338. doi:10.1007/s00799-015-0156-0
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00799-015-0156-0). S2CID 207035184 (https://api.semanticsch
olar.org/CorpusID:207035184).
38. John S. Breese; David Heckerman & Carl Kadie (1998). Empirical analysis of predictive
algorithms for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth conference on
Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI'98). arXiv:1301.7363 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.736
3).
39. Breese, John S.; Heckerman, David; Kadie, Carl (1998). Empirical Analysis of Predictive
Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering (http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/69656/tr-98-12.pdf)
(PDF) (Report). Microsoft Research.
40. Koren, Yehuda; Volinsky, Chris (2009-08-01). "Matrix Factorization Techniques for
Recommender Systems". Computer. 42 (8): 30–37. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.147.8295 (https://cites
eerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.147.8295). doi:10.1109/MC.2009.263 (https://
doi.org/10.1109%2FMC.2009.263). S2CID 58370896 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:58370896).
41. Sarwar, B.; Karypis, G.; Konstan, J.; Riedl, J. (2000). "Application of Dimensionality
Reduction in Recommender System A Case Study" (http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/node/
122).,
42. Allen, R.B. (1990). "User Models: Theory, Method, Practice". International J. Man-Machine
Studies.
43. Parsons, J.; Ralph, P.; Gallagher, K. (July 2004). "Using viewing time to infer user preference
in recommender systems". AAAI Workshop in Semantic Web Personalization, San Jose,
California. .
44. Sanghack Lee and Jihoon Yang and Sung-Yong Park, Discovery of Hidden Similarity on
Collaborative Filtering to Overcome Sparsity Problem (https://books.google.com/books?id=u
4qzlZAEjegC&dq=sparsity+problem+content-based&pg=PA396), Discovery Science, 2007.
45. Felício, Crícia Z.; Paixão, Klérisson V.R.; Barcelos, Celia A.Z.; Preux, Philippe (2017-07-09).
"A Multi-Armed Bandit Model Selection for Cold-Start User Recommendation" (https://doi.or
g/10.1145/3079628.3079681). Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling,
Adaptation and Personalization. UMAP '17. Bratislava, Slovakia: Association for Computing
Machinery: 32–40. doi:10.1145/3079628.3079681 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3079628.307
9681). ISBN 978-1-4503-4635-1. S2CID 653908 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6
53908).
46. Collaborative Recommendations Using Item-to-Item Similarity Mappings (http://patft.uspto.g
ov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.ht
ml&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,266,649.PN.&OS=PN/6,266,649&RS=PN/6,
266,649) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150316185024/http://patft.uspto.gov/netac
gi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bo
ol.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6%2C266%2C649.PN.&OS=PN%2F6%2
C266%2C649&RS=PN%2F6%2C266%2C649) 2015-03-16 at the Wayback Machine
47. Aggarwal, Charu C. (2016). Recommender Systems: The Textbook. Springer.
ISBN 9783319296579.
48. Peter Brusilovsky (2007). The Adaptive Web (https://archive.org/details/adaptivewebmetho0
0brus). p. 325 (https://archive.org/details/adaptivewebmetho00brus/page/n331). ISBN 978-3-
540-72078-2.
49. Wang, Donghui; Liang, Yanchun; Xu, Dong; Feng, Xiaoyue; Guan, Renchu (2018). "A
content-based recommender system for computer science publications" (https://doi.org/10.1
016%2Fj.knosys.2018.05.001). Knowledge-Based Systems. 157: 1–9.
doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.knosys.2018.05.001).
50. Blanda, Stephanie (May 25, 2015). "Online Recommender Systems – How Does a Website
Know What I Want?" (http://blogs.ams.org/mathgradblog/2015/05/25/online-recommender-sy
stems-website-want/). American Mathematical Society. Retrieved October 31, 2016.
51. X.Y. Feng, H. Zhang, Y.J. Ren, P.H. Shang, Y. Zhu, Y.C. Liang, R.C. Guan, D. Xu, (2019),
"The Deep Learning–Based Recommender System “Pubmender” for Choosing a
Biomedical Publication Venue: Development and Validation Study (https://www.jmir.org/201
9/5/e12957/)", Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21 (5): e12957
52. Rinke Hoekstra, The Knowledge Reengineering Bottleneck (http://www.semantic-web-journ
al.net/sites/default/files/swj32.pdf), Semantic Web – Interoperability, Usability, Applicability 1
(2010) 1, IOS Press
53. Gomez-Uribe, Carlos A.; Hunt, Neil (28 December 2015). "The Netflix Recommender
System" (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2843948). ACM Transactions on Management
Information Systems. 6 (4): 1–19. doi:10.1145/2843948 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F284394
8).
54. Zamanzadeh Darban, Z.; Valipour, M. H. (15 August 2022). "GHRS: Graph-based hybrid
recommendation system with application to movie recommendation". Expert Systems with
Applications. 200: 116850. arXiv:2111.11293 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11293).
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116850 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2022.116850).
S2CID 244477799 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:244477799).
55. Robin Burke, Hybrid Web Recommender Systems (http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~acristea/c
ourses/CS411/2010/Book%20-%20The%20Adaptive%20Web/HybridWebRecommenderSy
stems.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20140912085014/http://www.dcs.warwick.
ac.uk/~acristea/courses/CS411/2010/Book%20-%20The%20Adaptive%20Web/HybridWeb
RecommenderSystems.pdf) 2014-09-12 at the Wayback Machine, pp. 377-408, The
Adaptive Web, Peter Brusilovsky, Alfred Kobsa, Wolfgang Nejdl (Ed.), Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Vol. 4321, May 2007, 978-3-540-72078-2.
56. Hidasi, Balázs; Karatzoglou, Alexandros; Baltrunas, Linas; Tikk, Domonkos (2016-03-29).
"Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks". arXiv:1511.06939 (htt
ps://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06939) [cs.LG (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.LG)].
57. Chen, Minmin; Beutel, Alex; Covington, Paul; Jain, Sagar; Belletti, Francois; Chi, Ed (2018).
"Top-K Off-Policy Correction for a REINFORCE Recommender System". arXiv:1812.02353
(https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02353) [cs.LG (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.LG)].
58. Yifei, Ma; Narayanaswamy, Balakrishnan; Haibin, Lin; Hao, Ding (2020). "Temporal-
Contextual Recommendation in Real-Time" (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3394486.3403278).
KDD '20: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery & Data Mining. Association for Computing Machinery: 2291–2299.
doi:10.1145/3394486.3403278 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3394486.3403278).
ISBN 9781450379984. S2CID 221191348 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:22119
1348).
59. Hidasi, Balázs; Karatzoglou, Alexandros (2018-10-17). "Recurrent Neural Networks with
Top-k Gains for Session-based Recommendations" (https://doi.org/10.1145/3269206.32717
61). Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management. CIKM '18. Torino, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery: 843–852.
arXiv:1706.03847 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03847). doi:10.1145/3269206.3271761 (https://
doi.org/10.1145%2F3269206.3271761). ISBN 978-1-4503-6014-2. S2CID 1159769 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1159769).
60. Kang, Wang-Cheng; McAuley, Julian (2018). "Self-Attentive Sequential Recommendation".
arXiv:1808.09781 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09781) [cs.IR (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.IR)].
61. Li, Jing; Ren, Pengjie; Chen, Zhumin; Ren, Zhaochun; Lian, Tao; Ma, Jun (2017-11-06).
"Neural Attentive Session-based Recommendation" (https://doi.org/10.1145/3132847.31329
26). Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management. CIKM '17. Singapore, Singapore: Association for Computing Machinery:
1419–1428. arXiv:1711.04725 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04725).
doi:10.1145/3132847.3132926 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3132847.3132926). ISBN 978-1-
4503-4918-5. S2CID 21066930 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21066930).
62. Liu, Qiao; Zeng, Yifu; Mokhosi, Refuoe; Zhang, Haibin (2018-07-19). "STAMP: Short-Term
Attention/Memory Priority Model for Session-based Recommendation" (https://doi.org/10.11
45/3219819.3219950). Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. KDD '18. London, United Kingdom: Association for
Computing Machinery: 1831–1839. doi:10.1145/3219819.3219950 (https://doi.org/10.1145%
2F3219819.3219950). ISBN 978-1-4503-5552-0. S2CID 50775765 (https://api.semanticsch
olar.org/CorpusID:50775765).
63. Xin, Xin; Karatzoglou, Alexandros; Arapakis, Ioannis; Jose, Joemon (2020). "Self-
Supervised Reinforcement Learning for Recommender Systems". arXiv:2006.05779 (https://
arxiv.org/abs/2006.05779) [cs.LG (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.LG)].
64. Ie, Eugene; Jain, Vihan; Narvekar, Sanmit; Agarwal, Ritesh; Wu, Rui; Cheng, Heng-Tze;
Chandra, Tushar; Boutilier, Craig (2019). "SlateQ: A Tractable Decomposition for
Reinforcement Learning with Recommendation Sets" (https://research.google/pubs/pub482
00/). Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (IJCAI-19): 2592–2599.
65. Zou, Lixin; Xia, Long; Ding, Zhuoye; Song, Jiaxing; Liu, Weidong; Yin, Dawei (2019).
"Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Long-term User Engagement in Recommender
Systems" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3292500.3330668). KDD '19: Proceedings of the
25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. KDD
'19: 2810–2818. arXiv:1902.05570 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05570).
doi:10.1145/3292500.3330668 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3292500.3330668).
ISBN 9781450362016. S2CID 62903207 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:629032
07).
66. Lakiotaki, K.; Matsatsinis; Tsoukias, A (March 2011). "Multicriteria User Modeling in
Recommender Systems". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 26 (2): 64–76.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.476.6726 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.476.
6726). doi:10.1109/mis.2011.33 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2Fmis.2011.33). S2CID 16752808
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16752808).
67. Gediminas Adomavicius, Nikos Manouselis, YoungOk Kwon. "Multi-Criteria Recommender
Systems" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140630021251/http://ids.csom.umn.edu/faculty/ged
as/NSFCareer/MCRS-chapter-2010.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (http://ids.csom.u
mn.edu/faculty/gedas/NSFCareer/MCRS-chapter-2010.pdf) (PDF) on 2014-06-30.
68. Bouneffouf, Djallel (2013), DRARS, A Dynamic Risk-Aware Recommender System (http://te
l.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01026136/fr/) (Ph.D.), Institut National des Télécommunications
69. Yong Ge; Hui Xiong; Alexander Tuzhilin; Keli Xiao; Marco Gruteser; Michael J. Pazzani
(2010). An Energy-Efficient Mobile Recommender System (http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~g
ruteser/papers/KDD10.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD Int'l Conf. on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York City, New York: ACM. pp. 899–908.
Retrieved 2011-11-17.
70. Pimenidis, Elias; Polatidis, Nikolaos; Mouratidis, Haralambos (3 August 2018). "Mobile
recommender systems: Identifying the major concepts". Journal of Information Science. 45
(3): 387–397. arXiv:1805.02276 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.02276).
doi:10.1177/0165551518792213 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0165551518792213).
S2CID 19209845 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:19209845).
71. Lohr, Steve (22 September 2009). "A $1 Million Research Bargain for Netflix, and Maybe a
Model for Others" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/technology/internet/22netflix.html).
The New York Times.
72. R. Bell; Y. Koren; C. Volinsky (2007). "The BellKor solution to the Netflix Prize" (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20120304173001/http://www.netflixprize.com/assets/ProgressPrize2007_Kor
Bell.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (http://www.netflixprize.com/assets/ProgressPrize
2007_KorBell.pdf) (PDF) on 2012-03-04. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
73. Bodoky, Thomas (2009-08-06). "Mátrixfaktorizáció one million dollars" (http://index.hu/tech/n
et/2009/08/07/matrixfaktorizacio_egymillio_dollarert/). Index.
74. Rise of the Netflix Hackers (https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/7296
3) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120124011808/http://www.wired.com/science/dis
coveries/news/2007/03/72963) January 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
75. "Netflix Spilled Your Brokeback Mountain Secret, Lawsuit Claims" (https://www.wired.com/th
reatlevel/2009/12/netflix-privacy-lawsuit/). WIRED. 17 December 2009. Retrieved 1 June
2015.
76. "Netflix Prize Update" (https://web.archive.org/web/20111127084829/http://blog.netflix.com/
2010/03/this-is-neil-hunt-chief-product-officer.html). Netflix Prize Forum. 2010-03-12.
Archived from the original (http://blog.netflix.com/2010/03/this-is-neil-hunt-chief-product-offic
er.html) on 2011-11-27. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
77. Lathia, N., Hailes, S., Capra, L., Amatriain, X.: Temporal diversity in recommender systems
(http://www.academia.edu/download/46585553/lathia_sigir10.pdf). In: Proceedings of the
33rd International ACMSIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information
Retrieval, SIGIR 2010, pp. 210–217. ACM, New York
78. Turpin, Andrew H, Hersh, William (2001). "Why batch and user evaluations do not give the
same results". Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on
Research and development in information retrieval. pp. 225–231.
79. "MovieLens dataset" (https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/). 2013-09-06.
80. ChenHung-Hsuan; ChungChu-An; HuangHsin-Chien; TsuiWen (2017-09-01). "Common
Pitfalls in Training and Evaluating Recommender Systems". ACM SIGKDD Explorations
Newsletter. 19: 37–45. doi:10.1145/3137597.3137601 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3137597.
3137601). S2CID 10651930 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:10651930).
81. Jannach, Dietmar; Lerche, Lukas; Gedikli, Fatih; Bonnin, Geoffray (2013-06-10). Carberry,
Sandra; Weibelzahl, Stephan; Micarelli, Alessandro; Semeraro, Giovanni (eds.). User
Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (https://archive.org/details/usermodelingadap00p
ero). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 25 (https://archive.
org/details/usermodelingadap00pero/page/n44)–37. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.465.96 (https://citese
erx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.465.96). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38844-6_3 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-38844-6_3). ISBN 9783642388439.
82. Turpin, Andrew H.; Hersh, William (2001-01-01). Why Batch and User Evaluations Do Not
Give the Same Results (https://archive.org/details/proceedingsof24t0000inte/page/225).
Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval. SIGIR '01. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 225–231 (ht
tps://archive.org/details/proceedingsof24t0000inte/page/225). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.165.5800 (ht
tps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.165.5800).
doi:10.1145/383952.383992 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F383952.383992). ISBN 978-
1581133318. S2CID 18903114 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18903114).
83. Langer, Stefan (2015-09-14). "A Comparison of Offline Evaluations, Online Evaluations, and
User Studies in the Context of Research-Paper Recommender Systems". In Kapidakis,
Sarantos; Mazurek, Cezary; Werla, Marcin (eds.). Research and Advanced Technology for
Digital Libraries. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 9316. Springer International
Publishing. pp. 153–168. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24592-8_12 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F97
8-3-319-24592-8_12). ISBN 9783319245911.
84. Basaran, Daniel; Ntoutsi, Eirini; Zimek, Arthur (2017). Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM
International Conference on Data Mining. pp. 390–398. doi:10.1137/1.9781611974973.44 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1137%2F1.9781611974973.44). ISBN 978-1-61197-497-3.
85. Beel, Joeran; Genzmehr, Marcel; Langer, Stefan; Nürnberger, Andreas; Gipp, Bela (2013-01-
01). A Comparative Analysis of Offline and Online Evaluations and Discussion of Research
Paper Recommender System Evaluation. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Reproducibility and Replication in Recommender Systems Evaluation. RepSys '13. New
York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 7–14. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1031.973 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie
wdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1031.973). doi:10.1145/2532508.2532511 (https://doi.org/10.114
5%2F2532508.2532511). ISBN 9781450324656. S2CID 8202591 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:8202591).
86. Cañamares, Rocío; Castells, Pablo (July 2018). Should I Follow the Crowd? A Probabilistic
Analysis of the Effectiveness of Popularity in Recommender Systems (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20210414070127/http://ir.ii.uam.es/pubs/sigir2018.pdf) (PDF). 41st Annual
International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information
Retrieval (SIGIR 2018). Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: ACM. pp. 415–424.
doi:10.1145/3209978.3210014 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3209978.3210014). Archived
from the original (http://ir.ii.uam.es/pubs/sigir2018.pdf) (PDF) on 2021-04-14. Retrieved
2021-03-05.
87. Cañamares, Rocío; Castells, Pablo; Moffat, Alistair (March 2020). "Offline Evaluation
Options for Recommender Systems" (http://ir.ii.uam.es/pubs/irj2020.pdf) (PDF). Information
Retrieval. Springer. 23 (4): 387–410. doi:10.1007/s10791-020-09371-3 (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2Fs10791-020-09371-3). S2CID 213169978 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
213169978).
88. Ziegler, C.N., McNee, S.M., Konstan, J.A. and Lausen, G. (2005). "Improving
recommendation lists through topic diversification". Proceedings of the 14th international
conference on World Wide Web. pp. 22–32.
89. Castells, Pablo; Hurley, Neil J.; Vargas, Saúl (2015). "Novelty and Diversity in
Recommender Systems" (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_26).
In Ricci, Francesco; Rokach, Lior; Shapira, Bracha (eds.). Recommender Systems
Handbook (2 ed.). Springer US. pp. 881–918. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_26 (https://do
i.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4899-7637-6_26). ISBN 978-1-4899-7637-6.
90. Joeran Beel; Stefan Langer; Marcel Genzmehr; Andreas Nürnberger (September 2013).
"Persistence in Recommender Systems: Giving the Same Recommendations to the Same
Users Multiple Times" (http://docear.org/papers/persistence_in_recommender_systems_--_g
iving_the_same_recommendations_to_the_same_users_multiple_times.pdf) (PDF). In
Trond Aalberg; Milena Dobreva; Christos Papatheodorou; Giannis Tsakonas; Charles
Farrugia (eds.). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Practice of
Digital Libraries (TPDL 2013). Lecture Notes of Computer Science (LNCS). Vol. 8092.
Springer. pp. 390–394. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
91. Cosley, D., Lam, S.K., Albert, I., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, {J}. (2003). "Is seeing believing?: how
recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions" (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d7d
5/47012091d11ba0b0bf4a6630c5689789c22e.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems. pp. 585–592. S2CID 8307833 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8307833).
92. {P}u, {P}., {C}hen, {L}., {H}u, {R}. (2012). "Evaluating recommender systems from the user's
perspective: survey of the state of the art" (http://doc.rero.ch/record/317166/files/11257_2011
_Article_9115.pdf) (PDF). User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: 1–39.
93. Naren Ramakrishnan; Benjamin J. Keller; Batul J. Mirza; Ananth Y. Grama; George Karypis
(2001). Privacy Risks in Recommender Systems (https://archive.org/details/sigir2002procee
d0000inte/page/54). IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 5. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Educational
Activities Department. pp. 54–62 (https://archive.org/details/sigir2002proceed0000inte/page/
54). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.2.2932 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.2
932). doi:10.1109/4236.968832 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2F4236.968832). ISBN 978-1-
58113-561-9. S2CID 1977107 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1977107).
94. Joeran Beel; Stefan Langer; Andreas Nürnberger; Marcel Genzmehr (September 2013).
"The Impact of Demographics (Age and Gender) and Other User Characteristics on
Evaluating Recommender Systems" (http://docear.org/papers/the_impact_of_users'_demogr
aphics_(age_and_gender)_and_other_characteristics_on_evaluating_recommender_syste
ms.pdf) (PDF). In Trond Aalberg; Milena Dobreva; Christos Papatheodorou; Giannis
Tsakonas; Charles Farrugia (eds.). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2013). Springer. pp. 400–404. Retrieved
1 November 2013.
95. {K}onstan, {J}.{A}., {R}iedl, {J}. (2012). "Recommender systems: from algorithms to user
experience" (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11257-011-9112-x.pdf) (PDF).
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 22 (1–2): 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11257-011-
9112-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11257-011-9112-x). S2CID 8996665 (https://api.semant
icscholar.org/CorpusID:8996665).
96. {R}icci, {F}., {R}okach, {L}., {S}hapira, {B}., {K}antor {B}. {P}. (2011). "Recommender systems
handbook". Recommender Systems Handbook: 1–35. Bibcode:2011rsh..book.....R (https://u
i.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011rsh..book.....R).
97. Möller, Judith; Trilling, Damian; Helberger, Natali; van Es, Bram (2018-07-03). "Do not blame
it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their
impact on content diversity" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1
444076). Information, Communication & Society. 21 (7): 959–977.
doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1369118X.2018.144407
6). ISSN 1369-118X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1369-118X). S2CID 149344712 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:149344712).
98. Montaner, Miquel, L{\'o}pez, Beatriz, de la Rosa, Josep Llu{\'\i}s (2002). "Developing trust in
recommender agents" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221454720). Proceedings
of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part
1. pp. 304–305.
 99. Beel, Joeran, Langer, Stefan, Genzmehr, Marcel (September 2013). "Sponsored vs. Organic
(Research Paper) Recommendations and the Impact of Labeling" (http://docear.org/papers/s
ponsored_vs._organic_(research_paper)_recommendations_and_the_impact_of_labeling.p
df) (PDF). In Trond Aalberg; Milena Dobreva; Christos Papatheodorou; Giannis Tsakonas;
Charles Farrugia (eds.). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and
Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2013). pp. 395–399. Retrieved 2 December 2013.
100. Ferrari Dacrema, Maurizio; Boglio, Simone; Cremonesi, Paolo; Jannach, Dietmar (8 January
2021). "A Troubling Analysis of Reproducibility and Progress in Recommender Systems
Research" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3434185). ACM Transactions on Information
Systems. 39 (2): 1–49. arXiv:1911.07698 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.07698).
doi:10.1145/3434185 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3434185). hdl:11311/1164333 (https://hdl.
handle.net/11311%2F1164333). S2CID 208138060 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:208138060).
101. Ferrari Dacrema, Maurizio; Cremonesi, Paolo; Jannach, Dietmar (2019). "Are We Really
Making Much Progress? A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation
Approaches" (https://dl.acm.org/authorize?N684126). Proceedings of the 13th ACM
Conference on Recommender Systems. RecSys '19. ACM: 101–109. arXiv:1907.06902 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06902). doi:10.1145/3298689.3347058 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F32
98689.3347058). hdl:11311/1108996 (https://hdl.handle.net/11311%2F1108996).
ISBN 9781450362436. S2CID 196831663 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:19683
1663). Retrieved 16 October 2019.
102. Rendle, Steffen; Krichene, Walid; Zhang, Li; Anderson, John (22 September 2020). "Neural
Collaborative Filtering vs. Matrix Factorization Revisited" (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F33833
13.3412488). Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems: 240–248.
arXiv:2005.09683 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09683). doi:10.1145/3383313.3412488 (https://
doi.org/10.1145%2F3383313.3412488). ISBN 9781450375832.
103. Sun, Zhu; Yu, Di; Fang, Hui; Yang, Jie; Qu, Xinghua; Zhang, Jie; Geng, Cong (2020). "Are
We Evaluating Rigorously? Benchmarking Recommendation for Reproducible Evaluation
and Fair Comparison" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3383313.3412489). RecSys '20:
Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM: 23–32.
doi:10.1145/3383313.3412489 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3383313.3412489).
ISBN 9781450375832. S2CID 221785064 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:22178
5064).
104. Schifferer, Benedikt; Deotte, Chris; Puget, Jean-François; de Souza Pereira, Gabriel;
Titericz, Gilberto; Liu, Jiwei; Ak, Ronay. "Using Deep Learning to Win the Booking.com
WSDM WebTour21 Challenge on Sequential Recommendations" (https://web.ec.tuwien.ac.
at/webtour21/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/shifferer.pdf) (PDF). WSDM '21: ACM Conference
on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM.
105. Volkovs, Maksims; Rai, Himanshu; Cheng, Zhaoyue; Wu, Ga; Lu, Yichao; Sanner, Scott
(2018). "Two-stage Model for Automatic Playlist Continuation at Scale" (https://dl.acm.org/do
i/10.1145/3267471.3267480). RecSys '18: Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender
Systems. ACM: 1–6. doi:10.1145/3267471.3267480 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3267471.32
67480). ISBN 9781450365864. S2CID 52942462 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
52942462).
106. Yves Raimond, Justin Basilico Deep Learning for Recommender Systems (https://www2.slid
eshare.net/moustaki/deep-learning-for-recommender-systems-86752234), Deep Learning
Re-Work SF Summit 2018
107. Ekstrand, Michael D.; Ludwig, Michael; Konstan, Joseph A.; Riedl, John T. (2011-01-01).
Rethinking the Recommender Research Ecosystem: Reproducibility, Openness, and
LensKit. Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. RecSys '11.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 133–140. doi:10.1145/2043932.2043958 (https://doi.org/10.1
145%2F2043932.2043958). ISBN 9781450306836. S2CID 2215419 (https://api.semanticsc
holar.org/CorpusID:2215419).
108. Konstan, Joseph A.; Adomavicius, Gediminas (2013-01-01). Toward Identification and
Adoption of Best Practices in Algorithmic Recommender Systems Research. Proceedings of
the International Workshop on Reproducibility and Replication in Recommender Systems
Evaluation. RepSys '13. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 23–28.
doi:10.1145/2532508.2532513 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2532508.2532513).
ISBN 9781450324656. S2CID 333956 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:333956).
109. Breitinger, Corinna; Langer, Stefan; Lommatzsch, Andreas; Gipp, Bela (2016-03-12).
"Towards reproducibility in recommender-systems research" (http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nb
n:de:bsz:352-0-324818). User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 26 (1): 69–101.
doi:10.1007/s11257-016-9174-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11257-016-9174-x).
ISSN 0924-1868 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0924-1868). S2CID 388764 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:388764).
110. Said, Alan; Bellogín, Alejandro (2014-10-01). Comparative recommender system evaluation:
benchmarking recommendation frameworks. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on
Recommender Systems. RecSys '14. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 129–136.
doi:10.1145/2645710.2645746 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2645710.2645746).
hdl:10486/665450 (https://hdl.handle.net/10486%2F665450). ISBN 9781450326681.
S2CID 15665277 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15665277).

Further reading
Books

Kim Falk (January 2019), Practical Recommender Systems, Manning Publications,

ISBN 9781617292705
Bharat Bhasker; K. Srikumar (2010). Recommender Systems in E-Commerce (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20100901164550/http://www.tatamcgrawhill.com/html/9780070680678.html).
CUP. ISBN 978-0-07-068067-8. Archived from the original (http://www.tatamcgrawhill.com/ht
ml/9780070680678.html) on 2010-09-01.
Francesco Ricci; Lior Rokach; Bracha Shapira; Paul B. Kantor, eds. (2011). Recommender
Systems Handbook (https://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-0-387-85819-7).
Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-85819-7.
Bracha Shapira; Lior Rokach (June 2012). Building Effective Recommender Systems (http
s://archive.today/20140501234448/http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-1-4419-0
048-7). ISBN 978-1-4419-0047-0. Archived from the original (https://www.springer.com/comp
uter/ai/book/978-1-4419-0048-7) on 2014-05-01.
Dietmar Jannach; Markus Zanker; Alexander Felfernig; Gerhard Friedrich (2010).
Recommender Systems:An Introduction (https://web.archive.org/web/20150831032309/htt
p://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521493369). CUP.
ISBN 978-0-521-49336-9. Archived from the original (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogu
e/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521493369) on 2015-08-31.
Seaver, Nick (2022). Computing Taste: Algorithms and the Makers of Music
Recommendation. University of Chicago Press.

Scientific articles
 Prem Melville, Raymond J. Mooney, and Ramadass Nagarajan. (2002) Content-Boosted
Collaborative Filtering for Improved Recommendations. (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ml/
papers/cbcf-aaai-02.pdf) Proceedings of the Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI-2002), pp. 187–192, Edmonton, Canada, July 2002.
Meyer, Frank (2012). "Recommender systems in industrial contexts". arXiv:1203.4487 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4487) [cs.IR (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.IR)].
Bouneffouf, Djallel (2012), "Following the User's Interests in Mobile Context-Aware
Recommender Systems: The Hybrid-e-greedy Algorithm", Proceedings of the 2012 26th
International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140514042848/http://www-inf.int-evry.fr:80/~bounef_d/index_
fichiers/Hybrid-e-greedy%20for%20Mobile%20Context-aware%20Recommender%20Syste
m.pdf) (PDF), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 657–662,
ISBN 978-0-7695-4652-0, archived from the original (http://www-inf.int-evry.fr/~bounef_d/ind
ex_fichiers/Hybrid-e-greedy%20for%20Mobile%20Context-aware%20Recommender%20Sy
stem.pdf) (PDF) on 2014-05-14.
Bouneffouf, Djallel (2013), DRARS, A Dynamic Risk-Aware Recommender System (http://te
l.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01026136/fr/) (Ph.D.), Institut National des Télécommunications.

External links
Robert M. Bell; Jim Bennett; Yehuda Koren & Chris Volinsky (May 2009). "The Million Dollar
Programming Prize" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090511144610/http://www.spectrum.iee
e.org/may09/8788). IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original (http://www.spectrum.ieee.or
g/may09/8788) on 2009-05-11. Retrieved 2018-12-10.
Hangartner, Rick, "What is the Recommender Industry?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071
219144013/http://www.msearchgroove.com/2007/12/17/guest-column-what-is-the-recomme
nder-industry/), MSearchGroove, December 17, 2007.
ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (http://recsys.acm.org/)
Recsys group at Politecnico di Milano (http://recsys.deib.polimi.it/)
Data Science: Data to Insights from MIT (recommendation systems) (https://web.archive.org/
web/20170118041300/https://mitprofessionalx.mit.edu/courses/course-v1:MITProfessionalX
+DSx+2016_T1/about)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recommender_system&oldid=1150304197"