Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Can Large Language Models Assess Serendipity in Recommender Systems? (2404.07499v1)

Published 11 Apr 2024 in cs.IR

Abstract: Serendipity-oriented recommender systems aim to counteract over-specialization in user preferences. However, evaluating a user's serendipitous response towards a recommended item can be challenging because of its emotional nature. In this study, we address this issue by leveraging the rich knowledge of LLMs, which can perform a variety of tasks. First, this study explored the alignment between serendipitous evaluations made by LLMs and those made by humans. In this investigation, a binary classification task was given to the LLMs to predict whether a user would find the recommended item serendipitously. The predictive performances of three LLMs on a benchmark dataset in which humans assigned the ground truth of serendipitous items were measured. The experimental findings reveal that LLM-based assessment methods did not have a very high agreement rate with human assessments. However, they performed as well as or better than the baseline methods. Further validation results indicate that the number of user rating histories provided to LLM prompts should be carefully chosen to avoid both insufficient and excessive inputs and that the output of LLMs that show high classification performance is difficult to interpret.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (24)
  1. R. J. Ziarani and R. Ravanmehr, “Serendipity in Recommender Systems: A Systematic Literature Review,” J. Comput. Sci. Technol., Vol. 36, pp. 375–396, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-020-0135-9
  2. Z. Fu, X. Niu, and M. L. Maher, “Deep Learning Models for Serendipity Recommendations: A Survey and New Perspectives,” ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–26, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3605145
  3. A. Said, B. Fields, B. J. Jain and S. Albayrak, “User-centric Evaluation of a K-furthest Neighbor Collaborative Filtering Recommender Algorithm,” Proc. of the 2013 Conf. on Comput. Support. Coop. Work, pp. 1399–1408, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441933
  4. Q. Zheng, C. -K. Chan, and H. H. S. Ip, “An unexpectednessaugmented utility model for making serendipitous recommendation,” Proc. of the 15th Ind. Conf. on Data Min., pp. 216–230, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20910-4_16
  5. R. J. Ziarani and R. Ravanmehr, “Deep Neural Network Approach for a Serendipity-oriented Recommendation System,” Expert Syst. Appl., Vol. 185, 115660, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115660
  6. M. Zhang, Y. Yang, R. Abbas, K. Deng, J. Li, and B. Zhang, “SNPR: A Serendipity-Oriented Next POI Recommendation Model,” Proc. of the 30th ACM Int. Conf. on Inf. & Knowl. Manag., pp. 2568–2577, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459637.3482394
  7. Z. Fu, X. Niu, and L. Yu, “Wisdom of Crowds and Fine-Grained Learning for Serendipity Recommendations,” Proc. of the 2023 ACM SIGIR Int. Conf. on Theory of Inf. Retr., pp. 739–748, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591787
  8. D. Kotkov, J. Veijalainen, and S. Wang, “How Does Serendipity Affect Diversity in Recommender Systems? A Serendipity-oriented Greedy Algorithm,” Computing, Vol. 102, pp. 393–411, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-018-0687-5
  9. Y. Tokutake and K. Okamoto, “Serendipity-oriented Recommender System with Dynamic Unexpectedness Prediction,” Proc. of 2023 IEEE Int. Conf. on Syst., Man, and Cybern., pp. 1247–1252, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC53992.2023.10394368
  10. D. Kotkov, J. A. Konstan, Q. Zhao, and J. Veijalainen, “Investigating Serendipity in Recommender Systems Based on Real User Feedback,” Proc. of the 33rd Annu. ACM Symp. on Appl. Comput., pp. 1341–1350, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3167132.3167276
  11. W. Hua, L. Li, S. Xu, L. Chen, and Y. Zhang, “Tutorial on Large Language Models for Recommendation,” Proc. of the 17th ACM Conf. on Recomm. Syst., pp. 1281–1283, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3604915.3609494
  12. J. Liu, C. Liu, P. Zhou, R. Lv, K. Zhou, and Y. Zhang, “Is ChatGPT a Good Recommender? A Preliminary Study,” arXiv:2304.10149, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.10149
  13. Y. Xi, W. Liu, J. Lin, X. Cai, H. Zhu, J. Zhu, B. Chen, R. Tang, W. Zhang, R. Zhang, and Y. Yu, “Towards Open-World Recommendation with Knowledge Augmentation from Large Language Models,” arXiv:2306:10933, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.10933
  14. A. Zhang, L. Sheng, Y. Chen, H. Li, Y. Deng, X. Wang, and T.-S. Chua, “On Generative Agents in Recommendation,” arXiv:2310.10108, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.10108
  15. D. Carraro and D. Bridge, “Enhancing Recommendation Diversity by Re-ranking with Large Language Models,” arXiv:2401.11506, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.11506
  16. D. Kotkov, A. Medlar, and D. Glowacka, “Rethinking Serendipity in Recommender Systems,” Proc. of the 2023 Conf. on Hum. Inf. and Retr, pp. 383–387, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576840.3578310
  17. P. Adamopoulos and A. Tuzhilin, “On Unexpectedness in Recommender Systems: Or How to Better Expect the Unexpected,” ACM Trans. on Intell. Syst. and Tech. Technol., Vol. 5, No. 4, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559952
  18. H. Yu, Y. Wang, Y. Fan, S. Meng and R. Huang, “ Accuracy Is Not Enough: Serendipity Should Be Considered More,” Innov. Mob. and Internet Serv. in Ubiquitous Comput., pp. 231–241, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61542-4_22
  19. J. Wang, Y. Liang, F. Meng, Z. Sun, H. Shi, Z. Li, J. Xu, J. Qu, and J. Zhou, “Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study,” Proc. of the 4th New Front. in Summ. Workshop, pp. 1-11, 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.newsum-1.1
  20. L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y. Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. P. Xing, H. Zhang, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica, “Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena,” arXiv:2306.05685, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.05685
  21. G. Faggioli, L. Dietz, C. L. A. Clarke, G. Demartini, M. Hagen, C. Hauff, N. Kando, E. Kanoulas, M. Potthast, B. Stein, and H. Wachsmuth, “Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment,” Proc. of the 2023 ACM SIGIR Int. Conf. on Theory of Inf. Retr., pp. 39–50, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3578337.3605136
  22. W. Sun, L. Yan, X. Ma, S. Wang, P. Ren, Z. Chen, D. Yin, and Z. Ren, “Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents,” Proc. of the 2023 Conf. on Empir. Method in Nat. Lang. Process., pp. 14918–14937, 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.923
  23. D. Trautmann, A. Petrova, and F. Schilder, “Legal Prompt Engineering for Multilingual Legal Judgement Prediction,” arXiv:2212.02199, 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.02199
  24. C. Jiang and X. Yang, “Legal Syllogism Prompting: Teaching Large Language Models for Legal Judgment Prediction,” Proc. of the Ninet. Int. Conf. on Artif. Intell. and Law, pp. 417–421, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3594536.3595170
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (2)
  1. Yu Tokutake (2 papers)
  2. Kazushi Okamoto (2 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.