Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web 2001
DOI: 10.1145/371920.372071
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
3,932
2
95

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7,219 publications
(4,256 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
16
3,932
2
95
Order By: Relevance
“…We have chosen this algorithm because it is widely used to recommend items when the modeling of user preferences is not a valid option (as in most of real scenarios [17][18][19] and others [20][21][22][23]). This algorithm requires users to rate an initial set of items.…”
Section: Group Recommendation Systems Grsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have chosen this algorithm because it is widely used to recommend items when the modeling of user preferences is not a valid option (as in most of real scenarios [17][18][19] and others [20][21][22][23]). This algorithm requires users to rate an initial set of items.…”
Section: Group Recommendation Systems Grsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, they suffer from the sparsity problem if rating/selection history is short. CF algorithms can be further divided into two categories: memory-based CF [23], Item-KNN [28] and model-based CF [30]. The hybrid approaches combine the content-based and CF methods to avoid their limitations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Maybe not. To cope with the problem, most existing approaches [14], [15], [23], [28] have been proposed to recommend the users personal significant and interesting items on e-commence websites, by estimating unknown rating which the user may rate the unrated item, i.e., rating prediction as (user,rating=?,item). Basically, the more high rating the user may rate the item, the more possible that the item would be recommended to the user.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concerning the comparability of clients, [262] and [263] state that for the most part either a relationship based likeness (e.g., Pearson connection coefficient) or a cosinesimilitude measure in view of client profile vectors is connected. With respect to thing based sifting, the objective is to locate the most comparable things taking into account the client profiles of the clients who appraised these things [264]. The most comparable things are positioned and in this way given to the client.…”
Section: Memory-based Cfmentioning
confidence: 99%