Evaluating Generative AI Tools for Personalized Offline Recommendations: A Comparative Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Background: Generative AI tools have become increasingly relevant in supporting personalized recommendations across various domains. However, their effectiveness in health-related behavioral interventions, especially those aiming to reduce the use of technology, remains underexplored. Aims: This study evaluates the performance and user satisfaction of the five most widely used generative AI tools when recommending non-digital activities tailored to individuals at risk of repetitive strain injury. Method: Following the Goal/Question/Metric (GQM) paradigm, this proposed experiment involves generative AI tools that suggest offline activities based on predefined user profiles and intervention scenarios. The evaluation is focused on quantitative performance (precision, recall, F1-score and MCC-score) and qualitative aspects (user satisfaction and perceived recommendation relevance). Two research questions were defined: RQ1 assessed which tool delivers the most accurate recommendations, and RQ2 evaluated how tool choice influences user satisfaction.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2025.
Builds on
7 of 46 references.
References · 7
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2024Phi-4 Technical Reportcited by 711
- 2023LLMs for Science: Usage for Code Generation and Data Analysiscited by 34
- 2024On Explaining Recommendations with Large Language Models: A Reviewcited by 15
- 2025LLM-based User Profile Management for Recommender Systemcited by 10
- 2025Generative AI in Academic Writing: A Comparison of DeepSeek, Qwen, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama, Mistral, and Gemmacited by 5
- 2025Generative Artificial Intelligence: Evolving Technology, Growing Societal Impact, and Opportunities for Information Systems Researchcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.