Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Multi-tiered Solution for Personalized Baggage Item Recommendations using FastText and Association Rule Mining

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a four-phase system combining FastText embeddings and association-rule mining can turn airline baggage rules and user search histories into personalized packing recommendations that respect carry-on, check-in, and…

desk verdict A competent engineering write-up of a FastText-plus-Apriori baggage recommender, but the effectiveness claims rest on evaluation metrics computed over programmatically generated synthetic transactions, so the research contribution as argued does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09359 v1 pith:32HZWV5E submitted 2025-01-16 cs.IR

Mudavath Ravi , Atul Negi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords baggagerecommendationairtravelrecommendersystemFastTextembeddingsassociationruleminingApriorialgorithmcontent-basedfilteringpersonalizationwebscraping
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

This paper proposes an air travel baggage recommender that combines FastText word embeddings with association-rule mining to suggest packing items based on a traveler's destination and search history. The system scrapes airline websites to build a vocabulary of 712 items labeled as carry-on, check-in, or prohibited, then matches user queries by embedding similarity and refines the suggestions with item associations mined from user interaction logs. The paper claims that this multi-tiered pipeline produces relevant, personalized recommendations, reduces packing effort, and helps travelers comply with airline size and weight limits. It evaluates the mined rules with support, confidence, lift, leverage, and conviction metrics, and reports that the ATRS vocabulary outperforms a market-basket dataset in these terms. A careful reader would care because baggage advice is largely missing from existing travel tools, and a working version could reduce check-in delays and excess-baggage fees.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a four-phase pipeline. Phase I loads pre-trained FastText word embeddings, tokenizes user input, and computes cosine similarity against item embeddings to find top-N similar items and assign one of 43 categories. Phase II adds a content-based recommender that records user searches with timestamps into a history file. Phase III converts that history into one-hot encoded transactions, applies the Apriori algorithm to find frequent itemsets, and generates association rules with confidence and lift thresholds. Phase IV feeds a user query through both the FastText similarity scorer and the association rules to return recommended items. The load-bearing pieces are the mean-embedding similarity calculation, the Apriori frequent-itemset mining, and the mapping from item combinations to synthetic user IDs used to evaluate the rules.

What would settle it

Take a real search log, mine association rules on the first half, and evaluate Phase-IV recommendations on the second half against a popularity baseline; if the rule-based recommendations do not beat the baseline in hit rate or relevant rank, the claimed effectiveness is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a baggage item recommender can be built without any existing baggage dataset or user preference data: web-scraping airline guidelines supplies the item vocabulary, pre-trained FastText embeddings supply semantic similarity between user inputs and item names, and Apriori association rules mined from user search histories supply item complementarity. The paper's Phase-IV combines these signals so that, when a traveler enters an item, the system returns the item's carry-on, check-in, or prohibited status, its category, top similar items, and items that co-occur in past searches. The paper argues that the resulting suggestions are relevant and effective, as evidenced by association-rule metrics on 109,878 user transaction IDs and by a comparative run on a standard market-basket dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic user transaction IDs, formed by enumerating item combinations, stand in for real traveler behavior, so the association rules and metrics reveal genuine preferences rather than artifacts of the combination generator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A traveler searching for an item can immediately see whether it belongs in carry-on, check-in, or the prohibited list, as well as similar items from the same category.
  • The system keeps learning: every new search updates the user history file, so future recommendations reflect accumulated item associations.
  • Items not present in the airline vocabulary can still be matched by embedding similarity, since FastText works on multi-word and unseen item names.
  • The same pipeline transfers to retail market-basket data, where it produces association rules with comparable metrics.
  • With a longer search history, the mined rules become denser, and the paper's Figure 11 indicates that the model gives better results as user history grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stricter test of the personalization claim would split a real user search log into a rule-mining set and a held-out evaluation set, and compare Phase-IV recommendations against a popularity baseline; the current evaluation uses the same file for both mining and scoring, so the reported metrics are partly an artifact of the generation procedure.
  • The synthetic transaction IDs built from all item combinations in Table 11 mean the 'user' in this paper is a set enumeration, not a person; before deployment, one would want to confirm that real travelers actually search for and pack items in combinations the way the one-hot encoded transactions assume.
  • Because FastText similarity can match an out-of-vocabulary query to known items, the same embedding layer could be repurposed as a live updater that checks new airline restriction text against the existing vocabulary.
  • The reported comparison to market-basket data suggests the method is domain-agnostic; a testable extension is to apply the same two-signal pipeline to hotel amenity or tour packing contexts and see whether the rule metrics remain meaningful.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a four-phase baggage item recommendation system (ATRS) for air travelers, combining FastText word embeddings with Association Rule Mining. Phase-I computes cosine similarities over pre-trained FastText embeddings; Phase-II adds a user search history in the form of timestamped item interactions; Phase-III converts that history into transactions and applies the Apriori algorithm; Phase-IV merges the FastText similarity scores with the mined association rules to produce recommendations. The dataset is a scraped list of 712 baggage items with carry-on, check-in, prohibited, and category labels. The evaluation reports support, confidence, lift, leverage, and conviction on a synthetic user_searches.csv file built from arbitrary item combinations, and compares these values with a market-basket dataset. The abstract and conclusion claim that the system ensures efficient luggage space utilization, weight-limit compliance, and an enhanced travel experience, and that the results demonstrate effective, personalized recommendations.

Significance. If validated, the system would address a relatively unexplored niche: concrete, item-level packing recommendations for air travelers. The paper's strengths are its clearly described four-phase architecture, the reproducible algorithmic presentation (Algorithms 1-4), and a potentially useful scraped dataset of airline baggage rules. However, the central claim of effectiveness is not established. The evaluation metrics are computed on the same synthetic transactions used to learn the association rules, and Section 7.5 explicitly concedes that no user preference data exist and that transaction IDs are treated as users. The reported all-1.0 confidence values are consequences of the transaction-generation procedure, not evidence of recommendation quality. No held-out evaluation, user study, baseline comparison, or statistical assessment is provided. The paper is best read as a system proposal with an illustrative demonstration, not as a validated recommendation system.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 7.4, Table 10; Section 7.5] The effectiveness claims in the abstract and Section 7.6 are not supported by the reported evaluation. Section 7.5 states that no user preference data are available and that transaction IDs are treated as users, with item combinations generated from singletons up to combinations of all 712 items (Table 11). Algorithm 4 and Table 10 then report support, confidence, lift, and leverage computed on this same synthetic user_searches.csv. These metrics are in-sample statistics of the transaction-generation process, not measurements of recommendation quality, so they cannot establish that the system provides relevant, personalized suggestions. A meaningful evaluation would require held-out transactions, real user judgments, or at least a baseline recommender.
  2. [Section 5.1, Challenge IV; Section 7.5] The personalization constraint stated in Section 3.3 is not demonstrated. Challenge IV describes populating user search history only for items not already in the dataset, and Section 7.5 explains that UIDs are generated from arbitrary item combinations. The system therefore has no actual user profile or preference signal; the recommendations reduce to content similarity plus association rules on synthetic transactions. The paper's own limitation statement in Section 7.5 acknowledges this, but the conclusion still claims personalized recommendations.
  3. [Algorithm 4; Table 10] The reported association-metric values are an artifact of threshold settings and data construction. With min_support=0.1 and min_confidence=0.5 applied to transactions formed by enumerating all item combinations, rules such as {Piano, Coffee} have support 0.5, confidence 1.0, and lift 2.0 because every combination containing the antecedent also contains the consequent by construction. These values do not reflect meaningful co-occurrence in traveler behavior and are not evidence that the rules generalize.
  4. [Section 7.4, Table 12, Figure 11] The comparison with market-basket data does not validate the model. Table 12 reports support, confidence, and lift for milk/ground beef rules from store_data.csv, but comparing these in-sample metrics with Table 10 across different datasets cannot establish which recommender is better. No error bars, statistical tests, or held-out evaluation are provided, and Figure 11 is described only by color rather than by quantitative axes, making the comparative claim unverifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.6 and Section 7.4] The paragraph beginning 'The algorithm utilizes Python libraries and techniques to process user search data' is repeated nearly verbatim in both sections; one copy should be removed.
  2. [Tables 10 and 12] Table 12 lists UID 1 twice, and Table 10 contains truncated itemset entries ('pi...') and an ellipsis row; the tables should be cleaned so that every row is legible and non-redundant.
  3. [Table 1] Several related-work entries do not match their cited sources; for example, the 'Brown et al. (2021)' row describes a hybrid expert-system and LLM approach but cites an LLM training-data extraction paper, and other entries appear to be mismatched. The authors should verify every related-work citation.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical and formatting errors, including 'Thispaperintroduces' in the abstract, 'convictions' for 'conviction' in Section 7.6, and inconsistently rendered equations in Section 3.3; a careful copy-edit is needed.
  5. [Section 8.2] The privacy and anonymization measures are described as properties of the data-handling model, but the experiments use synthetic UIDs rather than real user data; this section should be framed as design commitments rather than implemented, evaluated protections.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The system's effectiveness is evaluated with support/confidence/lift computed on the same synthetic user_searches.csv from which the association rules were mined; high metric values are in-sample artifacts of the generation process.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7.4 'Phase-IV Results analysis', Algorithm 4, and Section 6.7 'Evaluation of the Recommendation Model']
    "df ← Read CSV file (csv_file); ... Apply Apriori to transactions_df with min_support; ... association_rules ← Generate rules from frequent_itemsets with min_confidence; ... The evaluation metrics are calculated, visualized using a bar plot, and printed to assess the quality and effectiveness of the association rules in generating relevant recommendations for users."

    Algorithm 4 loads user_searches.csv, mines frequent itemsets with min_support=0.1 and generates rules with min_confidence=0.5. The evaluation metrics (support, confidence, lift, leverage; Table 10 and Figure 11) are then computed on the same user_searches.csv file. Because every reported rule already satisfies the thresholds used to generate it, high confidence/lift values (e.g., confidence 1.0, lift 2.0 for {Piano,Coffee}) are guaranteed in-sample summaries of the training transactions, not measurements of recommendation quality against real traveler preferences or held-out data. The 'effectiveness' claim therefore reduces to properties of the input file by construction.

  2. self definitional [Section 7.5 'Why ATRS is Required' and Table 11]
    "In our scenario, we do not have access to user preference data. Instead, we treat transaction IDs as representing users. ... The various item combinations, ranging from a single item up to a combination of 712 items in our approach, represent different user scenarios."

    Table 11 defines each user ID as an item combination, so 'user search history' is literally the enumerated transactions user_searches.csv. Any 'personalized' recommendation made from rules mined on those transactions is self-referential: the user is the item set, and the association rules describe the same arbitrary combinations used to define the user. The claim that the system handles 'diverse user preferences' is therefore a restatement of the combination-generation process, not evidence derived from actual traveler behavior.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline (FastText similarity in Phase-I/II, Apriori in Phase-III/IV) is not circular in its internal computation: embeddings and association-rule mining are standard algorithms applied as described. However, the central effectiveness claim is evaluated entirely in-sample on the synthetic user_searches.csv that also produced the rules. Section 7.5 explicitly states there is no user preference data and that transaction IDs are treated as users, with Table 11 showing UIDs are arbitrary item combinations. Thus the support/confidence/lift/leverage numbers in Table 10 and Figure 11 are descriptive statistics of the generated training file, forced by the min_support/min_confidence thresholds (0.1/0.5) in Algorithm 4. No held-out ground truth or real-user evaluation is reported, so 'relevant suggestions' and 'enhanced travel experience' reduce to the properties of the synthetic transactions rather than to independent predictive success. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain; the citations to the authors' own prior work (e.g., [41]) are contextual and not used to justify the central result. The circularity is therefore concentrated in the evaluation design, making the effectiveness claim partially circular (score 6) rather than a complete derivation from self-citation (score 8-10).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on two kinds of unpaid-for inputs: hand-picked mining thresholds (min_support=0.1, min_confidence=0.5) and the assumption that synthetic item-combination transactions encode real traveler preferences. The latter is introduced in Section 7.5 and is the most fragile part of the evaluation. No genuinely new physical or algorithmic entity is introduced; the synthetic UIDs are the closest thing to an invented construct.

free parameters (2)
  • min_support = 0.1
    Threshold for Apriori frequent itemsets in Algorithm 4; it is chosen by hand and directly controls the number and quality of mined rules.
  • min_confidence = 0.5
    Threshold for generating association rules in Algorithm 4; it is chosen by hand and directly controls the reported confidence values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained FastText embeddings provide meaningful semantic similarity between baggage item names
    Phase-I and Phase-IV compute cosine similarity between user input and item embeddings; if embedding similarity does not track packing relevance, the recommendations are arbitrary. Invoked in Sections 6.3 and 6.5 and Algorithm 4.
  • domain assumption The scraped TSA, IATA, and DGCA airline baggage lists are accurate, complete, and representative of real baggage rules
    The 712-item dataset is built from airline websites and TSA/IATA pages; any inaccuracies propagate into the recommendations. Invoked in Sections 5.2 and 6.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic user transaction IDs constructed from item combinations represent real traveler preferences
    Section 7.5 states that there is no user preference data and treats item combinations as user transactions (Table 11); this assumption is needed to justify the association rules and personalization claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Association-rule metrics computed on the training data measure recommendation quality
    The paper uses support, confidence, lift, and leverage as success metrics without held-out transactions or user feedback; this equates in-sample descriptive statistics with effectiveness. Invoked in Sections 6.7 and 7.4.
  • standard math Apriori algorithm and support, confidence, lift, and leverage definitions are standard and correctly computed
    The formulas in Section 6.7 match standard association-rule definitions; the concern is their application to training data, not their derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Synthetic user transaction IDs (UIDs) derived from item combinations
    purpose: Used to convert the 712-item baggage vocabulary into 109,878 transactions so association rule mining can be applied without actual user preference data.
    Section 7.5 and Table 11 construct UIDs from item combinations; no external user-behavior data supports these transactions, so the association rules and personalization claims rest on this invented mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multi-tiered Solution for Personalized Baggage Item Recommendations using FastText and Association Rule Mining." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32HZWV5E

@misc{pith2026250109359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multi-tiered Solution for Personalized Baggage Item Recommendations using FastText and Association Rule Mining},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32HZWV5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09359}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces an intelligent baggage item recommendation system to optimize packing for air travelers by providing tailored suggestions based on specific travel needs and destinations. Using FastText word embeddings and Association Rule Mining (ARM), the system ensures efficient luggage space utilization, compliance with weight limits, and an enhanced travel experience. The methodology comprises four phases: (1) data collection and preprocessing with pre-trained FastText embeddings for text representation and similarity scoring (2) a content-based recommendation system enriched by user search history (3) application of ARM to user interactions to uncover meaningful item associations and (4) integration of FastText and ARM for accurate, personalized recommendations. Performance is evaluated using metrics such as coverage, support, confidence, lift, leverage, and conviction. Results demonstrate the system's effectiveness in providing relevant suggestions, improving customer satisfaction, and simplifying the packing process. These insights advance personalized recommendations, targeted marketing, and product optimization in air travel and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ATRS Concept [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ATRS Workflow 1.3 Contributions Here, we outline the novel contributions of our research: 1. Identification of Constraints in ATRS Problem: We identify and elu￾cidate the specific constraints associated with the Air Travel Baggage Rec￾ommendation System (ATRS) problem. 2. Identification of Research Gaps: We identified existing research gaps within the domain of ATRS, providing insights into areas requiring further i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of Carry on items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Check in items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Prohibited items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of Categories items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Carry on vs Check in items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of Prohibited by categories Based on the dataset we explored the data visualization task. Shown in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ATRS General framework In the proposed framework, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Proposed framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evaluation metrics 7.6 Association Rules metrics The following steps describes the association rules metrics [53]. – Support Support quantifies the prevalence of a specific itemset within the dataset. It is calculated as the proportion of transactions containing the i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hard Rules, Soft Preferences: Bridging Reasoning, Learning, and Optimization for Personalized Packing Checklist Generation

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A three-stage hybrid system combining symbolic rules, preference learning, and CP-SAT optimization generates packing checklists that are both personalized and guaranteed to satisfy hard travel constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Se- curity 21)

    Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al.: Extracting training data from large language models. In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Se- curity 21). pp. 2633–2650 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Expert Systems with Applications96, 506–521 (2018)

    Afzal, M., Ali, S.I., Ali, R., Hussain, M., Ali, T., Khan, W.A., Amin, M.B., Kang, B.H., Lee, S.: Personalization of wellness recommendations using contextual inter- pretation. Expert Systems with Applications96, 506–521 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    IEEE Access 8, 125076–125096 (2020)

    Al-Tashi, Q., Abdulkadir, S.J., Rais, H.M., Mirjalili, S., Alhussian, H.: Approaches to multi-objective feature selection: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access 8, 125076–125096 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Alves, P., Martins, H., Saraiva, P., Carneiro, J., Novais, P., Marreiros, G.: Group recommender systems for tourism: how does personality predict preferences for attractions, travel motivations, preferences and concerns? User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction33(5), 1141–1210 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Probabilistic FastText for Multi-Sense Word Embeddings

    Athiwaratkun, B., Wilson, A.G., Anandkumar, A.: Probabilistic fasttext for multi- sense word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02901 (2018)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction pp

    Barile, F., Draws, T., Inel, O., Rieger, A., Najafian, S., Ebrahimi Fard, A., Hada, R., Tintarev, N.: Evaluating explainable social choice-based aggregation strategies for group recommendation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction pp. 1–58 (2023) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 43 Algorithm 4:Phase-IV Fast Text and ARM based recommendations...

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction pp

    Bernardis, C., Cremonesi, P.: Nfc: a deep and hybrid item-based model for item cold-start recommendation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction pp. 1–34 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing2019 (2019)

    Bin, C., Gu, T., Sun, Y., Chang, L., Sun, L., et al.: A travel route recommendation system based on smart phones and iot environment. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing2019 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Knowledge-based systems46, 109–132 (2013)

    Bobadilla, J., Ortega, F., Hernando, A., Gutiérrez, A.: Recommender systems sur- vey. Knowledge-based systems46, 109–132 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    Expert systems with applications41(16), 7370–7389 (2014)

    Borràs, J., Moreno, A., Valls, A.: Intelligent tourism recommender systems: A survey. Expert systems with applications41(16), 7370–7389 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    Encyclopedia of library and information systems69(Supplement 32), 175–186 (2000)

    Burke, R.: Knowledge-based recommender systems. Encyclopedia of library and information systems69(Supplement 32), 175–186 (2000)

    2000

  4. [11]

    User modeling and user-adapted interaction12, 331–370 (2002)

    Burke, R.: Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User modeling and user-adapted interaction12, 331–370 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Neural Computing and Appli- cations 34(10), 7691–7709 (2022)

    Cepeda-Pacheco, J.C., Domingo, M.C.: Deep learning and internet of things for tourist attraction recommendations in smart cities. Neural Computing and Appli- cations 34(10), 7691–7709 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining

    Chen, L., Tong, X., Yuan, M., Zeng, J., Chen, L.: A data-driven approach for multi-level packing problems in manufacturing industry. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. pp. 1762–1770 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems

    Cremonesi, P., Koren, Y., Turrin, R.: Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems. pp. 39–46 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    In: Artificial Intelli- gence and Machine Learning in the Travel Industry: Simplifying Complex Decision Making, pp

    Dadoun, A., Defoin-Plate, M., Fiig, T., Landra, C., Troncy, R.: How recommender systems can transform airline offer construction and retailing. In: Artificial Intelli- gence and Machine Learning in the Travel Industry: Simplifying Complex Decision Making, pp. 93–107. Springer (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    In: 2019 IEEE International Confer- ence on Big Data (Big Data)

    Diouf, R., Sarr, E.N., Sall, O., Birregah, B., Bousso, M., Mbaye, S.N.: Web scrap- ing: state-of-the-art and areas of application. In: 2019 IEEE International Confer- ence on Big Data (Big Data). pp. 6040–6042. IEEE (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Expert Systems with Appli- cations 149, 113301 (2020)

    Esmaeili, L., Mardani, S., Golpayegani, S.A.H., Madar, Z.Z.: A novel tourism rec- ommender system in the context of social commerce. Expert Systems with Appli- cations 149, 113301 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Research Journal of Applied Sci- ences, Engineering and Technology4(5), 500–509 (2012)

    Esmaeili, L., Minaei-Bidgoli, B., Alinejad-Rokny, H., Nasiri, M.: Hybrid recom- mender system for joining virtual communities. Research Journal of Applied Sci- ences, Engineering and Technology4(5), 500–509 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    In: Web Information Systems and Mining: International Conference, WISM 2011, Taiyuan, China, September 24-25, 2011, Proceedings, Part I

    Esmaeili, L., Nasiri, M., Minaei-Bidgoli, B.: Personalizing group recommendation to social network users. In: Web Information Systems and Mining: International Conference, WISM 2011, Taiyuan, China, September 24-25, 2011, Proceedings, Part I. pp. 124–133. Springer (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    IEEE Access 9, 41833–41843 (2021)

    Gao, Q., Liang, P.: Airline baggage appearance transportability detection based on a novel dataset and sequential hierarchical sampling cnn model. IEEE Access 9, 41833–41843 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Journal of Intelligent Information Systems pp

    Gupta, S., Kaur, K., Jain, S.: Eqbal-rs: Mitigating popularity bias in recommender systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems pp. 1–26 (2023) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 45

    2023

  15. [23]

    Knowledge and Information Systems 64(4), 963–993 (2022)

    Halder, S., Lim, K.H., Chan, J., Zhang, X.: Efficient itinerary recommendation via personalized poi selection and pruning. Knowledge and Information Systems 64(4), 963–993 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Information Sciences482, 248–265 (2019)

    Jiang, J.Y., Li, C.T., Lin, S.D.: Towards a more reliable privacy-preserving recom- mender system. Information Sciences482, 248–265 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management30(3), 1621–1645 (2018)

    Jung, T.H., Lee, H., Chung, N., tom Dieck, M.C.: Cross-cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage tourism sites. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management30(3), 1621–1645 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Journal of Intelligent Information Systems pp

    Khurana, P., Gupta, B., Sharma, R., Bedi, P.: Session-aware recommender sys- tem using double deep reinforcement learning. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems pp. 1–27 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    SmartCR4(3), 211–229 (2014)

    Kumar, V., Minz, S.: Feature selection. SmartCR4(3), 211–229 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    In: 2017 4th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA)

    Lee, C.I., Hsia, T.C., Hsu, H.C., Lin, J.Y.: Ontology-based tourism recommenda- tion system. In: 2017 4th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA). pp. 376–379. IEEE (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Bioinformatics34(4), 652–659 (2018)

    Lever, J., Gakkhar, S., Gottlieb, M., Rashnavadi, T., Lin, S., Siu, C., Smith, M., Jones, M.R., Krzywinski, M., Jones, S.J.: A collaborative filtering-based approach to biomedical knowledge discovery. Bioinformatics34(4), 652–659 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    In: UMAP (Extended Proceedings) (2016)

    Lim, K.H.: Personalized recommendation of travel itineraries based on tourist in- terests and preferences. In: UMAP (Extended Proceedings) (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Knowledge and Information Systems54, 375–406 (2018)

    Lim, K.H., Chan, J., Leckie, C., Karunasekera, S.: Personalized trip recommenda- tion for tourists based on user interests, points of interest visit durations and visit recency. Knowledge and Information Systems54, 375–406 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Revista de la Facultad de Ingenieria32(8), 229–236 (2017)

    Liu, Y., Zhang, Q.: Research on association rules mining algorithm based on large data. Revista de la Facultad de Ingenieria32(8), 229–236 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Expert systems with applications 40(9), 3532–3550 (2013)

    Lucas, J.P., Luz, N., Moreno, M.N., Anacleto, R., Figueiredo, A.A., Martins, C.: A hybrid recommendation approach for a tourism system. Expert systems with applications 40(9), 3532–3550 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    IEEE Communica- tions Magazine55(9), 16–24 (2017)

    Mehmood,Y.,Ahmad,F.,Yaqoob,I.,Adnane,A.,Imran,M.,Guizani,S.:Internet- of-things-based smart cities: Recent advances and challenges. IEEE Communica- tions Magazine55(9), 16–24 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Journal of Intelligent Information Systems54, 297–316 (2020)

    Mendoza, M., Torres, N.: Evaluating content novelty in recommender systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems54, 297–316 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    CRC press (2014)

    Moens, M.F., Li, J., Chua, T.S.: Mining user generated content. CRC press (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Artificial intelligence review13, 393–408 (1999)

    Pazzani, M.J.: A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic fil- tering. Artificial intelligence review13, 393–408 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    User Model- ing and User-Adapted Interaction pp

    Pelánek, R., Effenberger, T., Jarušek, P.: Personalized recommendations for learn- ing activities in online environments: a modular rule-based approach. User Model- ing and User-Adapted Interaction pp. 1–32 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    IEEE Network33(2), 4–5 (2019)

    Qian, Y., Wu, D., Bao, W., Lorenz, P.: The internet of things for smart cities: Technologies and applications. IEEE Network33(2), 4–5 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    In: 2020 International Conference on INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA)

    Qurashi, A.W., Holmes, V., Johnson, A.P.: Document processing: Methods for semantic text similarity analysis. In: 2020 International Conference on INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    In: 2022 IEEE 7th International conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT)

    Ravi, M., Negi, A., Chitnis, S.: A comparative review of expert systems, recom- mender systems, and explainable ai. In: 2022 IEEE 7th International conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT). pp. 1–8. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Information Processing & Management57(1), 102078 (2020) 46 Mudavath Ravi and Atul Negi

    Renjith, S., Sreekumar, A., Jathavedan, M.: An extensive study on the evolution of context-aware personalized travel recommender systems. Information Processing & Management57(1), 102078 (2020) 46 Mudavath Ravi and Atul Negi

    2020

  35. [43]

    Tourism Management66, 85– 93 (2018)

    Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., Kroesen, M.: Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using servqual and bwm. Tourism Management66, 85– 93 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    In: Handbook of e-Tourism, pp

    Ricci, F.: Recommender systems in tourism. In: Handbook of e-Tourism, pp. 457–

  37. [45]

    Proceedings, vol

    Ricci, F., Bontcheva, K., Conlan, O., Lawless, S.: User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization: 23rd International Conference, UMAP 2015, Dublin, Ireland, June 29–July 3, 2015. Proceedings, vol. 9146. Springer (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    In: Recommender systems handbook, pp

    Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira,B.: Introduction torecommender systems handbook. In: Recommender systems handbook, pp. 1–35. Springer (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Hachette UK (2002)

    Riedl, J., Konstan, J.: Word of mouse: the marketing power of collaborative filter- ing. Hachette UK (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications 82(6), 8983–9027 (2023)

    Sarkar, J.L., Majumder, A., Panigrahi, C.R., Roy, S., Pati, B.: Tourism recom- mendation system: A survey and future research directions. Multimedia Tools and Applications 82(6), 8983–9027 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce

    Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Analysis of recommendation algo- rithms for e-commerce. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. pp. 158–167 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    Data mining and knowledge discovery5, 115–153 (2001)

    Schafer, J.B., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, J.: E-commerce recommendation applications. Data mining and knowledge discovery5, 115–153 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    Journal of Air Transport Management68, 4–13 (2018)

    Shojaei, P., Haeri, S.A.S., Mohammadi, S.: Airports evaluation and ranking model using taguchi loss function, best-worst method and vikor technique. Journal of Air Transport Management68, 4–13 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Soft Computing27(24), 19159–19177 (2023)

    Song, Y., He, Y.: Toward an intelligent tourism recommendation system based on artificial intelligence and iot using apriori algorithm. Soft Computing27(24), 19159–19177 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods50(7), 1615–1628 (2021)

    Ünvan, Y.A.: Market basket analysis with association rules. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods50(7), 1615–1628 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Medical Image Analysis 79, 102470 (2022)

    van der Velden, B.H., Kuijf, H.J., Gilhuijs, K.G., Viergever, M.A.: Explain- able artificial intelligence (xai) in deep learning-based medical image anal- ysis. Medical Image Analysis 79, 102470 (2022). https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2022.102470, https://www....

    2022

  47. [55]

    In: 2014 IEEE interna- tional conference on computational intelligence and computing research

    Visalakshi, S., Radha, V.: A literature review of feature selection techniques and applications: Review of feature selection in data mining. In: 2014 IEEE interna- tional conference on computational intelligence and computing research. pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Engineering4(1), 21–28 (2018)

    Wang, C., Zheng, Y., Jiang, J., Ren, K.: Toward privacy-preserving personalized recommendation services. Engineering4(1), 21–28 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    IEEE network34(6), 295–301 (2020)

    Wang, W., Kumar, N., Chen, J., Gong, Z., Kong, X., Wei, W., Gao, H.: Realizing the potential of the internet of things for smart tourism with 5g and ai. IEEE network34(6), 295–301 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    IEEE Internet of Things journal1(1), 22–32 (2014)

    Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., Zorzi, M.: Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things journal1(1), 22–32 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Encyclopedia of big data1 (2017)

    Zhao, B.: Web scraping. Encyclopedia of big data1 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Manage- ment

    Zhao, X., Zhang, W., Wang, J.: Interactive collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Manage- ment. pp. 1411–1420 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Journal of Intelli- gent Information Systems51(3), 557–578 (2018) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 47

    Zheng, X., Luo, Y., Sun, L., Zhang, J., Chen, F.: A tourism destination recom- mender system using users’ sentiment and temporal dynamics. Journal of Intelli- gent Information Systems51(3), 557–578 (2018) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 47

    2018

  54. [62]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction11, 5–18 (2001)

    Zukerman, I., Albrecht, D.W.: Predictive statistical models for user modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction11, 5–18 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.