A Hybrid Document Recommender Algorithm Based on Random Walk

Zhang, Zhi Ping; Li, Lin Na; Yu, Hai Yan

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.336-338.2270

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Articles presented at conferences in late 2013 most likely had not been published in conferences proceedings by January 2014, and hence were not found through our search. Hence, the total number of papers published is probably higher than 217 evaluation methods were applied (e.g., user-studies or offline evaluations), which evaluation metrics were used (e.g., precision or recall), how many participants the user studies bad, and how strongly datasets were pruned.…”

Section: Paper | Article | Citation] [Recommender | Recommendation] [mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last 16 years, more than 200 research articles were published about research-paper recommender systems. We reviewed these articles and present some descriptive statistics in this paper, as well as a discussion about the major advancements and shortcomings and an overview of the most common recommendation concepts and approaches. We found that more than half of the recommendation approaches applied content-based filtering (55 %). Collaborative filtering was applied by only 18 % of the reviewed approaches, and graph-based recommendations by 16 %. Other recommendation concepts included stereotyping, item-centric recommendations, and hybrid recommendations. The content-based filtering approaches mainly utilized papers that the users had authored, tagged, browsed, or downloaded. TF-IDF was the most frequently applied weighting scheme. In addition to simple terms, n-grams, topics, and citations were utilized to model users' information needs. Our review revealed some shortcomings of the current research. First, it remains unclear which recommendation concepts and approaches are the most promising. For instance, researchers reported different results on the performance of contentbased and collaborative filtering. Sometimes content-based filtering performed better than collaborative filtering and Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden sometimes it performed worse. We identified three potential reasons for the ambiguity of the results. (A) Several evaluations had limitations. They were based on strongly pruned datasets, few participants in user studies, or did not use appropriate baselines. (B) Some authors provided little information about their algorithms, which makes it difficult to re-implement the approaches. Consequently, researchers use different implementations of the same recommendations approaches, which might lead to variations in the results. (C) We speculated that minor variations in datasets, algorithms, or user populations inevitably lead to strong variations in the performance of the approaches. Hence, finding the most promising approaches is a challenge. As a second limitation, we noted that many authors neglected to take into account factors other than accuracy, for example overall user satisfaction. In addition, most approaches (81 %) neglected the user-modeling process and did not infer information automatically but let users provide keywords, text snippets, or a single paper as input. Information on runtime was provided for 10 % of the approaches. Finally, few research papers had an impact on research-paper recommender systems in practice. We also identified a lack of authority and long-term research interest in the field: 73 % of the authors published no more than one paper on research-paper recommender systems, and there was little cooperation among different co-author groups. We concluded that several actions could improve the research landscape: developing a common evaluation framework, agreement on the information to include in research papers, a stronger focus on non-accuracy aspect...

show abstract

Section: Paper | Article | Citation] [Recommender | Recommendation] [mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collaborative filtering offers suggestions based on the neighbor’s selection of the same user group ( 3 ). Lastly, the hybrid filtering technique aims to enhance recommendation quality by combining the first two methods ( 4 ). Content-based filtering is preferred when an item is information-rich, such as text data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emati: a recommender system for biomedical literature based on supervised learning

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific literature continues to grow at an ever-increasing rate. Considering that thousands of new articles are published every week, it is obvious how challenging it is to keep up with newly published literature on a regular basis. Using a recommender system that improves the user experience in the online environment can be a solution to this problem. In the present study, we aimed to develop a web-based article recommender service, called Emati. Since the data are text-based by nature and we wanted our system to be independent of the number of users, a content-based approach has been adopted in this study. A supervised machine learning model has been proposed to generate article recommendations. Two different supervised learning approaches, namely the naïve Bayes model with Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) vectorizer and the state-of-the-art language model bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), have been implemented. In the first one, a list of documents is converted into TF-IDF–weighted features and fed into a classifier to distinguish relevant articles from irrelevant ones. Multinomial naïve Bayes algorithm is used as a classifier since, along with the class label, it also gives the probability that the input belongs to this class. The second approach is based on fine-tuning the pretrained state-of-the-art language model BERT for the text classification task. Emati provides a weekly updated list of article recommendations and presents it to the user, sorted by probability scores. New article recommendations are also sent to users’ email addresses on a weekly basis. Additionally, Emati has a personalized search feature to search online services’ (such as PubMed and arXiv) content and have the results sorted by the user’s classifier. Database URL: https://emati.biotec.tu-dresden.de

show abstract

A Hybrid Document Recommender Algorithm Based on Random Walk

Cited by 2 publications

References 23 publications

Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey

Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey

Emati: a recommender system for biomedical literature based on supervised learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About