mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

One Size Does Not Fit All: Modeling Users' Personal Curiosity in Recommender Systems

arXiv 1907.00119 ↗First posted 29 Jun 2019cs.IRcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Today's recommender systems are criticized for recommending items that are too obvious to arouse users' interest. That's why the recommender systems research community has advocated some "beyond accuracy" evaluation metrics such as novelty, diversity, coverage, and serendipity with the hope of promoting information discovery and sustain users' interest over a long period of time. While bringing in new perspectives, most of these evaluation metrics have not considered individual users' difference: an open-minded user may favor highly novel or diversified recommendations whereas a conservative user's appetite for novelty or diversity may not be that large. In this paper, we developed a model to approximate an individual's curiosity distribution over different levels of stimuli guided by the well-known Wundt curve in Psychology. We measured an item's surprise level to assess the stimulation level and whether it is in the range of the user's appetite for stimulus. We then proposed a recommendation system framework that considers both user preference and appetite for stimulus where the curiosity is maximally aroused. Our framework differs from a typical recommender system in that it leverages human's curiosity to promote intrinsic interest with the system. A series of evaluation experiments have been conducted to show that our framework is able to rank higher the items with not only high ratings but also high response likelihood. The recommendation list generated by our algorithm has higher potential of inspiring user curiosity compared to traditional approaches. The personalization factor for assessing the stimulus (surprise) strength further helps the recommender achieve smaller (better) inter-user similarity.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2.

2 papers.