Towards LLM-Enhanced Group Recommender Systems

Alexander Felfernig; Damian Garber; Jeremias Fuchs; Manuel Henrich; Reinhard Willfort; Sebastian Lubos; Thi Ngoc Trang Tran; Viet-Man Le

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Towards LLM-Enhanced Group Recommender Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that large language models have the potential to significantly enhance group recommender systems by improving preference aggregation, elicitation, explanations, and psychological modeling, and it maps the research issues…

desk verdict A clear, honest position paper that maps LLM capabilities onto group recommender challenges, but its central 'dynamic aggregation strategy' claim is untested and sits in direct tension with its own caveat about dominant-voice bias. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19283 v1 pith:E2YSUYL3 submitted 2025-07-25 cs.IR cs.AI

Sebastian Lubos , Alexander Felfernig , Thi Ngoc Trang Tran , Viet-Man Le , Damian Garber , Manuel Henrich , Reinhard Willfort , Jeremias Fuchs This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.IRcs.AI

keywords grouprecommendersystemslargelanguagemodelspreferenceaggregationelicitationexplanationgenerationdecisionmakingpsychologicalfairness

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large language models, the paper argues, can make group recommender systems substantially more flexible by intervening at four points: how individual preferences are aggregated, how they are elicited, how recommendations are explained, and how group psychology is modeled. Rather than fixed rules like average or least misery, an LLM-enhanced system could interpret free-form statements such as "I loved the plot but hated the violence," mediate conflicting critiques, and propose a suitable aggregation strategy for the situation. It could also generate explanations that adapt to each member's role and detect decision biases like groupthink and polarization from chat or multimodal meeting signals. The paper is an analysis of potential, not an empirical demonstration; its contribution is a structured map of where LLMs could help and which research problems stand in the way.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a four-part decomposition of group recommendation—preference aggregation algorithms, preference elicitation, explanation generation, and psychological decision modeling—paired with an inventory of LLM capabilities assigned to each part. The load-bearing mechanism is the LLM's ability to convert unstructured conversational and multimodal input into machine-readable preferences, conflict signals, and social-role estimates, which is what lets aggregation, elicitation, explanations, and psychological modeling all become adaptive. The map does the argument's work: any enhancement the paper claims is an instance of this conversion, and any failure of the conversion would break all four routes.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison in which one set of groups receives LLM-interpreted free-form chat as the preference source and another receives explicit numeric ratings, with the same aggregation method and post-decision satisfaction measures; if the LLM-derived preferences consistently miss stated preferences or fail to flag expressed conflicts, the central reliability premise is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs have the potential to significantly enhance algorithmic approaches for group recommender systems. It substantiates this by describing, for each of the four components, how a language model could absorb inputs that classical algorithms cannot: free-text feedback becomes preference vectors for group-based collaborative filtering; unstructured sources enrich user and item profiles in content-based filtering; conflicting critiques are mediated through generative dialog; and decision strategies are proposed dynamically from context. On the elicitation side, free-form conversation, chat history, and multi-modal cues replace or complement explicit ratings; on the explanation side, generated text adapts granularity to user roles and accounts for compromises; and on the psychological side, LLMs infer emotional contagion, groupthink, and polarization from sentiment and interaction patterns. The paper does not report experiments; it argues that these enhancements would increase decision support quality and applicability, and it lists open issues including fairness, real-time group modeling, multi-modal elicitation, and privacy.

Load-bearing premise

All of the proposed enhancements depend on a single premise: LLMs can reliably convert unstructured conversation, chat history, and multimodal signals into accurate preferences, conflict signals, and social-role estimates in real time, and if that interpretation is too noisy, biased, or hallucinated for high-stakes group decisions, the enhancements fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Recommendation strategies could be selected dynamically: instead of always applying average or least misery, the system would choose and explain an aggregation strategy from the group's context, roles, and stated preferences.
Preference elicitation could become conversational: free-form statements, pro/con discussions, and multi-modal cues would replace or supplement numeric ratings, allowing the system to detect disengaged members and mediate compromises.
Explanations could become role-adaptive and group-aware: the same recommendation could be explained in detail to an expert member, summarized for a less engaged member, and framed around resolved conflicts without exposing individual preferences.
Psychological phenomena could be monitored: LLM analysis of chat or meeting video could flag emotional contagion, groupthink, and polarization, prompting the system to surface alternative options or more moderate compromises.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the four enhancement routes are independently testable: the cleanest first experiment would isolate the elicitation route by comparing groups whose preferences are collected via free-form chat against groups using numeric ratings under the same aggregation rule.
The paper notes LLMs might over-represent dominant opinions; an extension it leaves implicit is that LLM-mediated conflict mediation could itself amplify groupthink, so a concrete test is whether the diversity of opinions expressed in a chat decreases after the LLM proposes compromises.
The real-time multimodal requirements the paper sketches point toward an architectural consequence it does not discuss: latency and cost will likely push implementations toward small, task-specific models rather than general-purpose LLMs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a useful, honest position paper, not a research contribution. It organizes known group-recommender problems and lists plausible LLM capabilities that could address them, with no experiments, data, or new methods. The reader's scores are fair, and the stress-test identifies a genuine tension.

The best part is the structure. The authors map classic GRS challenges—aggregation, elicitation, explanations, and psychological effects—onto concrete LLM affordances, and the psychological-models section (emotional contagion, groupthink, polarization) is a useful framing that prior LLM-GRS surveys mostly skip. The writing is clear and the references, including several of the authors' own papers, are used honestly.

The soft spots are exactly where the reader and stress-test point. The central claim—that LLMs can dynamically propose appropriate aggregation and decision strategies—is asserted without evidence. And Section 6 concedes that LLMs might over-represent dominant opinions, which is the one failure mode most likely to make their strategy proposals unreliable. The paper says bias-mitigation mechanisms are needed but does not sketch one. This is an important unresolved issue, not a fatal flaw: a position paper is allowed to list open problems. But the paper would be more credible if it explicitly acknowledged that its main promise depends on solving this bias problem first.

On novelty: there is nothing new in the technical sense. The paper explicitly sits in the line of Lin et al. and Zhang et al., and the contribution is synthesis and agenda-setting. That is fine for a workshop paper, but it means the value is for readers who want a compact map of the area, not for readers looking for results.

The weakest assumption, as the reader says, is that LLM-based interpretation of conversation and multimodal signals is reliable enough for real-time group decisions. Everything in the paper rests on that, and it is untested.

Bottom line: this paper is for workshop attendees and newcomers to GRS+LLM. It deserves peer review in that context, and it would survive as a short paper if the authors temper their claims and directly address the aggregation-bias tension. I would not cite it in my own work, but I might assign it to a student as a starting point.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that large language models (LLMs) can enhance group recommender systems in four areas: preference aggregation algorithms, preference elicitation, explanations, and psychological modeling of group decision making. It provides a brief overview of classical group recommendation approaches (group-based collaborative filtering, content-based filtering for groups, and critiquing-based group recommendation), lists potential LLM contributions in each area, and identifies open research issues such as decision strategy recommendation, fairness, real-time group modeling, multimodal preference elicitation, and privacy. The paper does not report experiments, formal derivations, or a systematic evaluation; it is a position/vision contribution that asserts these potentials.

Significance. If the claimed potentials were realized, LLMs could make group recommender systems more flexible and better suited to heterogeneous, real-world groups. The paper is useful as a concise survey and position statement, and it is consistent with current research trends in both recommender systems and LLM integration. Its explicit enumeration of open issues, including fairness and privacy, is a strength. However, the central claim that LLMs can 'significantly enhance' group recommenders is unsupported by data, and the paper itself concedes a bias that directly threatens its main proposed mechanism. The contribution is therefore best viewed as a starting point for research rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)

[Section 2 (LLM-related Potentials) and Section 6 (Assuring Fairness)] The central enhancement mechanism — that LLMs can dynamically propose appropriate preference aggregation and decision strategies — is directly threatened by the paper's own concession in Section 6 that LLMs 'might have a tendency to over-represent the more dominant opinions in a group decision setting.' This is not a minor caveat: the main promised benefit over fixed aggregation rules depends on LLM judgment being fair and balanced, yet the paper offers no concrete safeguard beyond a vague requirement that bias mitigation mechanisms be integrated. As written, the argument is internally inconsistent: it proposes LLM-mediated flexibility as the solution while conceding that LLM-mediated interpretation is biased in exactly the target setting.
[Sections 2–5] All of the 'LLM-related Potentials' are asserted without empirical evidence, baseline comparisons, or failure analysis. For example, the claim that LLMs can interpret free-form feedback such as 'I loved the plot but hated the violence' and transform it into preference vectors (Section 2), or can detect groupthink by analyzing opinion diversity (Section 5), is plausible but entirely untested. The paper should either frame these claims explicitly as hypotheses that require validation, or provide at least a small proof-of-concept evaluation against classical baselines such as average or least misery.
[Section 6, 'Recommendation of Decision Strategies'] The paper proposes that LLMs can analyze decision context and individual member preferences/roles to recommend appropriate decision strategies, but it does not specify what input information is used, how strategy proposals would be validated, or how users could build trust in the proposed strategies. This is a load-bearing component of the envisioned system, yet it is only a high-level sketch, which makes the central claim difficult to evaluate or reproduce.
[Section 5 and Table 4] The use of multimodal signals (video, audio, body posture) for preference inference assumes that LLMs can reliably extract accurate psychological states in real time. The paper does not discuss failure modes such as sensor noise, cultural differences in nonverbal expression, or the risk of inferring sensitive information about group members, beyond a brief privacy mention in Section 6. This reliability assumption underlies several of the proposed enhancements, so it needs a concrete analysis or at least an explicit statement of the open problem.

minor comments (5)

[Section 7 (Conclusions)] The phrase 'decision support support features' contains a duplicated word and should read 'decision support features'.
[References, [17]] Reference [17] has incomplete publication details: the venue is listed as 'Collaborative Recommendations, ????' with no publisher or year. This needs to be completed.
[References, [28]] Reference [28] reuses the DOI of reference [25] (10.1145/1297231.1297259), which is clearly incorrect for a real-world physiological dataset paper. The correct DOI or citation should be provided.
[Section 3] The prompt example 'What kind of movie would everyone enjoy tonight?' is presented without quotation marks or attribution; if it is an illustrative prompt, it should be introduced as an example rather than as a tested input.
[General] Several 'LLM-related Potentials' blur the line between known LLM capabilities and speculation; adding a consistent 'hypothesis' or 'research question' framing for each numbered potential would improve scientific precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a position/agenda analysis without a derivation chain, and its self-citations are background, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation or quantitative prediction. Its claims are proposals about how LLMs could support group recommender systems (e.g., Section 2: 'LLMs have the potential to significantly enhance algorithmic approaches for group recommender systems'; Section 5: 'LLMs can help to more deeply integrate psychological decision models into group recommender systems'). These are not derived from fitted parameters, definitions, or equations, so no prediction reduces to an input by construction. The authors cite their own prior work (e.g., refs [4], [22], [24], [26], [27]) for background on group recommender systems, explanation generation, multimodal meeting analysis, and polarization; those citations provide domain context and prior empirical/positional support rather than constituting the premises from which the central claim is forced. Section 6's admission that LLMs 'might have a tendency to over-represent the more dominant opinions in a group decision setting' is an acknowledged limitation and an internal consistency risk, not a circular step: the paper does not use that admission as an input from which it derives its enhancement claims. Consequently, no self-definitional, fitted-input, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's suggestions stand on unverified assumptions about LLM reliability, multimodal sensing, and the relevance of psychological models, rather than on data. No parameters are fitted because no quantitative model is proposed. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LLMs can reliably interpret free-form user feedback and extract preference vectors, as asserted in Section 2 LLM-related Potentials.
The paper's proposed enhancements rely on unvalidated LLM interpretation accuracy for casual, conversational input.
domain assumption Group decision processes can be improved by dynamic strategy selection based on context and roles analyzed by LLMs, as asserted in Section 6.
The paper proposes LLM-driven strategy recommendation without evidence that such recommendations improve group outcomes.
domain assumption Psychological effects such as emotional contagion, groupthink, and polarization are detectable from chat or video signals and can be countered by LLM interventions, as asserted in Section 5.
The paper connects psychological constructs to LLM analysis without empirical validation of detection accuracy or intervention effectiveness.
domain assumption Using conversational and multimodal preference elicitation yields more accurate or more useful preferences than numeric ratings, as asserted in Section 3.
The paper claims natural language elicitation is more context-rich without providing user studies or comparisons against rating-based baselines.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards LLM-Enhanced Group Recommender Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E2YSUYL3

@misc{pith2026250719283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards LLM-Enhanced Group Recommender Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E2YSUYL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19283}
}

read the original abstract

In contrast to single-user recommender systems, group recommender systems are designed to generate and explain recommendations for groups. This group-oriented setting introduces additional complexities, as several factors - absent in individual contexts - must be addressed. These include understanding group dynamics (e.g., social dependencies within the group), defining effective decision-making processes, ensuring that recommendations are suitable for all group members, and providing group-level explanations as well as explanations for individual users. In this paper, we analyze in which way large language models (LLMs) can support these aspects and help to increase the overall decision support quality and applicability of group recommender systems.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Jannach, M

D. Jannach, M. Zanker, A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, Rec- ommender Systems: An Introduction, 1st ed., Cam- bridge University Press, USA, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Jameson, B

A. Jameson, B. Smyth, Recommendation to Groups, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 596–627. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_ 20

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_ 2007
[3]

Masthoff, Group recommender systems: Combining individual models, in: F

J. Masthoff, Group recommender systems: Combining individual models, in: F. Ricci, L. Rokach, B. Shapira, P. B. Kantor (Eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2011, pp. 677–702. doi:10. 1007/978-0-387-85820-3_21

work page 2011
[4]

Felfernig, L

A. Felfernig, L. Boratto, M. Stettinger, M. Tkalčič, Group Recommender Systems: An Introduction, Springer, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Jameson, M

A. Jameson, M. Willemsen, A. Felfernig, Individual and group decision making and recommender systems, in: F. Ricci, L. Rokach, B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook, Springer, New York, NY, 2022, pp. 789–832. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_21

doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_21 2022
[6]

Reinecke, M

K. Reinecke, M. K. Nguyen, A. Bernstein, M. Näf, K. Z. Gajos, Doodle around the world: online scheduling behavior reflects cultural differences in time percep- tion and group decision-making, in: Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’13, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 45–54. doi: 10. 1145/2441776.2441784

work page arXiv 2013
[7]

Berry, S

S. Berry, S. Fazzio, Y. Zhou, B. Scott, L. Francisco- Revilla, Netflix recommendations for groups, in: 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem - Volume 47, ASIS&T ’10, American Society for Information Science, USA, 2010

work page 2010
[8]

D. Kwak, S. Park, I. Cha, H. Kim, Y.-K. Lim, Investigat- ing the potential of group recommendation systems as a medium of social interactions: A case of spo- tify blend experiences between two users, in: CHI ’24, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024. doi: 10.1145/ 3613904.3642544

arXiv 2024

Show all 36 references

[9]

Ninaus, A

G. Ninaus, A. Felfernig, M. Stettinger, S. Reiterer, G. Leitner, L. Weninger, W. Schanil, IntelliReq: In- telligent Techniques for Software Requirements Engi- neering, ECAI’14, 2014, pp. 1161–1166

2014
[10]

Jannach, A

D. Jannach, A. Delić, F. Ricci, M. Zanker, Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of Genera- tive AI: From One-Shot Recommendations to Agentic Group Decision Support, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2507.00535. arXiv:2507.00535

2025 arXiv
[11]

Z. Luo, Z. Chen, A privacy preserving group recom- mender based on cooperative perturbation, in: In- ternational Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery, 2014, pp. 106–

2014
[12]

T. N. T. Tran, A. Felfernig, V. M. Le, M. Atas, M. Stet- tinger, R. Samer, User interfaces for counteracting de- cision manipulation in group recommender systems, in: Adjunct Publication of the 27th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP’19 Adjunct, ...

2019
[13]

Hofstede, Culture’s consequences: Comparing val- ues, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, Sage Publications, 2001

G. Hofstede, Culture’s consequences: Comparing val- ues, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, Sage Publications, 2001

2001
[14]

Zhang, P

D. Zhang, P. Lowry, L. Zhou, X. Fu, The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence, J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 23 (2007) 53–80. doi:10. 2753/MIS0742-1222230404

2007
[15]

J. Lin, X. Dai, Y. Xi, W. Liu, B. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Wu, X. Li, C. Zhu, H. Guo, Y. Yu, R. Tang, W. Zhang, How can recommender systems benefit from large language models: A survey, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 43 (2025). doi:10.1145/3678004

2025 doi
[16]

Zhang, K

J. Zhang, K. Bao, Y. Zhang, W. Wang, F. Feng, X. He, Large Language Models for Recommendation: Pro- gresses and Future Directions, in: Companion Pro- ceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, WWW ’24, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024, pp. 1268–1271. doi:10.1145/3589335.3641247

2024
[17]

Boratto, A

L. Boratto, A. Felfernig, Group recommendations, in: Collaborative Recommendations, ????, pp. 203–232. doi:10.1142/9789813275355_0006

doi
[18]

Masthoff, A

J. Masthoff, A. Delić, Group recommender systems: Beyond preference aggregation, in: F. Ricci, L. Rokach, B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook, Springer US, New York, NY, 2022, pp. 381–420. doi:10. 1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_10

2022
[19]

Pérez-Almaguer, R

Y. Pérez-Almaguer, R. Yera, A. A. Alzahrani, L. Martínez, Content-based group recommender systems: A general taxonomy and further improve- ments, Expert Systems with Applications 184 (2021) 115444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa. 2021.115444

2021
[20]

McCarthy, M

K. McCarthy, M. Salamó, L. Coyle, L. McGinty, B. Smyth, P. Nixon, Group recommender systems: a critiquing based approach, in: 11th International Con- ference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’06, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2006, pp. 267–269. doi:10.1145/ 1111449.1111506

2006
[21]

Garcia, S

I. Garcia, S. Pajares, L. Sebastia, E. Onaindia, Prefer- ence elicitation techniques for group recommender systems, Information Sciences 189 (2012) 155–175. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2011.11.037

2012 doi
[22]

Felfernig, T

A. Felfernig, T. Gruber, G. Brandner, P. Blazek, M. Stet- tinger, Customizing Events with EventHelpr, in: 8th Intl. Conf. on Mass Customization and Personalization, MCP-CE 2018, 2018, pp. 88–91

2018
[23]

S. Feng, Z. Lang, J. He, H. Zhang, W. Chen, J. Cao, A group recommendation method based on auto- matically integrating members’ preferences via tak- ing advantages of llm, Information Sciences 709 (2025) 122067. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ins.2025.122067

2025
[24]

Lubos, A

S. Lubos, A. Felfernig, D. Garber, V.-M. Le, M. Hen- rich, R. Willfort, J. Fuchs, Towards group decision support with llm-based meeting analysis, in: Adjunct Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP Ad- junct ’25, ACM, New Y...

2025
[26]

Lubos, T

S. Lubos, T. N. T. Tran, A. Felfernig, S. Polat Erdeniz, V.- M. Le, LLM-generated Explanations for Recommender Systems, in: 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP Adjunct ’24, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024, pp. 276–285. doi:10. 1145/3631700.3665185

2024
[27]

M. Atas, S. Reiterer, A. Felfernig, T. N. T. Tran, M. Stet- tinger, Polarization effects in group decisions, in: Adjunct Publication of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP ’18, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 305–310. doi:10.1145/321358...

2018
[28]

P. Bota, J. Brito, A. Fred, P. Cesar, H. Silva, A real- world dataset of group emotion experiences based on physiological data, Sci Data 11 (2024). doi: 10.1145/ 1297231.1297259

2024
[29]

L. Chen, M. de Gemmis, A. Felfernig, P. Lops, F. Ricci, G. Semeraro, Human decision making and recom- mender systems, ACM Trans. Int. Intell. S. 3 (2013). doi:10.1145/2533670.2533675

2013
[30]

Contreras, M

D. Contreras, M. Salamó, L. Boratto, Integrating Col- laboration and Leadership in Conversational Group Recommender Systems, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 39 (2021). doi:10.1145/3462759

2021 doi
[31]

Masthoff, A

J. Masthoff, A. Gatt, In pursuit of satisfaction and the prevention of embarrassment: affective state in group recommender systems 16 (2006) 281–319. doi:10.1007/s11257-006-9008-3

2006 doi
[33]

T. N. T. Tran, A. Felfernig, N. Tintarev, Humanized recommender systems: State-of-the-art and research issues, ACM Trans. Int. Intell. S. 11 (2021). doi: 10. 1145/3446906

2021
[34]

J. K. Esser, Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 (1998) 116–141. doi:10. 1006/obhd.1998.2758

1998
[35]

Tommasel, Fairness Matters: A look at LLM- generated group recommendations, in: 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys ’24, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024, pp

A. Tommasel, Fairness Matters: A look at LLM- generated group recommendations, in: 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys ’24, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024, pp. 993–998. doi:10. 1145/3640457.3688182

2024
[36]

Alvarado, N

O. Alvarado, N. N. Htun, Y. Jin, K. Verbert, A System- atic Review of Interaction Design Strategies for Group Recommendation Systems, ACM Hum.-Comput. In- teract. 6 (2022). doi:10.1145/3555161

2022 doi
[37]

Y. Ge, S. Liu, Z. Fu, J. Tan, Z. Li, S. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Xian, Y. Zhang, A Survey on Trustworthy Recommender Systems, ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst. 3 (2024). doi:10. 1145/3652891

2024
[111]

doi:10.1109/CyberC.2014.26

2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Jannach, M

D. Jannach, M. Zanker, A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, Rec- ommender Systems: An Introduction, 1st ed., Cam- bridge University Press, USA, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Jameson, B

A. Jameson, B. Smyth, Recommendation to Groups, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 596–627. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_ 20

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_ 2007

[3] [3]

Masthoff, Group recommender systems: Combining individual models, in: F

J. Masthoff, Group recommender systems: Combining individual models, in: F. Ricci, L. Rokach, B. Shapira, P. B. Kantor (Eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2011, pp. 677–702. doi:10. 1007/978-0-387-85820-3_21

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Felfernig, L

A. Felfernig, L. Boratto, M. Stettinger, M. Tkalčič, Group Recommender Systems: An Introduction, Springer, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Jameson, M

A. Jameson, M. Willemsen, A. Felfernig, Individual and group decision making and recommender systems, in: F. Ricci, L. Rokach, B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook, Springer, New York, NY, 2022, pp. 789–832. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_21

doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_21 2022

[6] [6]

Reinecke, M

K. Reinecke, M. K. Nguyen, A. Bernstein, M. Näf, K. Z. Gajos, Doodle around the world: online scheduling behavior reflects cultural differences in time percep- tion and group decision-making, in: Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’13, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 45–54. doi: 10. 1145/2441776.2441784

work page arXiv 2013

[7] [7]

Berry, S

S. Berry, S. Fazzio, Y. Zhou, B. Scott, L. Francisco- Revilla, Netflix recommendations for groups, in: 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem - Volume 47, ASIS&T ’10, American Society for Information Science, USA, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [8]

D. Kwak, S. Park, I. Cha, H. Kim, Y.-K. Lim, Investigat- ing the potential of group recommendation systems as a medium of social interactions: A case of spo- tify blend experiences between two users, in: CHI ’24, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024. doi: 10.1145/ 3613904.3642544

arXiv 2024