The Value of Personalized Recommendations: Evidence from Netflix

Allen Tran; Aur\'elien Bibaut; Guy Aridor; Kevin Zielnicki; Nathan Kallus; Winston Chou

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper estimates that replacing Netflix's current recommender with matrix factorization or popularity-based algorithms would cut engagement by 4% and 12%, and that effective targeting—not mere exposure—accounts for most of the recommend

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:06 UTC pith:UDEIMFVI

load-bearing objection Serious, unusually honest attempt to value a real RecSys at scale, with genuine out-of-sample validation; the counterfactual levels and the targeting claim depend on an untested exogeneity assumption and a partly mechanical decomposition. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.07280 v5 pith:UDEIMFVI submitted 2025-11-10 econ.GN cs.IRcs.LGq-fin.EC

The Value of Personalized Recommendations: Evidence from Netflix

Kevin Zielnicki , Guy Aridor , Aur\'elien Bibaut , Allen Tran , Winston Chou , Nathan Kallus This is my paper

classification econ.GN cs.IRcs.LGq-fin.EC

keywords recommender systemsdiscrete choice modelNetflixtargeting vs exposurediversion ratiosconsumption diversitystate dependencerecommendation value

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper attempts to establish that Netflix's personalized recommender system creates a large, separable share of viewing engagement, and that this value comes mostly from matching titles to the right users rather than from the simple act of showing a recommendation. It builds a discrete-choice model of daily viewing that separates a title's intrinsic appeal from the extra utility of being recommended, and identifies the recommendation effect using the recommender's own exploration randomness. The headline counterfactuals are that replacing the current system with popularity-based or matrix-factorization algorithms would reduce engagement by 12% and 4%, respectively, and random recommendations by 16%, while also concentrating consumption on fewer titles. The deeper claim is that exposure alone explains only about 6.8% of recommendation-driven consumption, while selection and targeting together explain about 93%, with the largest targeting gains for mid-popularity titles. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that modern recommender systems meaningfully shape demand and that their gains are about matching, not salience.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that personalized recommendations at Netflix have large, separable value: replacing the deployed recommender with a popularity-based or matrix-factorization algorithm would reduce engagement by 12% and 4% respectively, and random recommendations by 16%, while also making consumption more concentrated. Using a discrete-choice model with low-rank user–good preferences, additive recommendation bonuses for different homepage positions, and a sequence model of watch history, the authors attribute most of the recommendation-driven consumption difference to matching: selection into high-propensity users accounts for 51.3% of the gap, targeting (higher responsiveness amo

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (5), which decomposes the consumption gap for a recommended good into selection (baseline propensity of targeted users), exposure (the average treatment effect of recommendation), and targeting (the extra responsiveness of targeted users beyond the average effect). The model supplies the counterfactual choice probabilities: utility is a low-rank interaction between a user-state vector and learned good embeddings, plus location-specific recommendation bonuses, and exploration randomization identifies the bonus parameters. This decomposition turns the model estimates into the headline 51.3% / 6.8% / 41.9% split and the mid-popularity heterogeneity result.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis hinges on the recommender's internal exploration randomness being unrelated to users' unobserved tastes; if the exploration draws are themselves targeted or correlated with what a user would have watched anyway, the estimated recommendation effects and all counterfactuals are biased.

What would settle it

Run a balance test on the exploration randomization: compare pre-period viewing behavior across users who did and did not receive a particular exploratory recommendation; any systematic difference in baseline consumption propensity contradicts exogeneity. Alternatively, run a randomized holdout that shifts recommendations in a way orthogonal to predicted tastes; the model predicts a specific exposure-only effect, and a mismatch would falsify the decomposition.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Replacing the current recommender with matrix factorization would cut engagement by 4%; a popularity-based policy would cut it by 12%; random recommendations would cut it by 16%.
Both matrix factorization and popularity-based policies would raise consumption concentration, with HHI increases of about 37.5% and 42.5%, respectively.
Because exposure accounts for only about 6.8% of recommendation-driven consumption, the value of recommender improvements lies mostly in match quality, not in surface area or salience.
Mid-popularity goods are where targeting matters most, implying that catalog and curation strategies should emphasize discoverability for titles with sizeable but specific audiences.
Exploration variation in a recommender can be repurposed to measure model-free diversion ratios, offering a path to substitution measurement in other markets without price variation.
The exogenous-embedding extension allows the model to estimate incremental demand for goods not yet on the platform, not just the observed catalog.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the 93% selection-plus-targeting share is even approximately right, user trust in the recommender is part of the product: a counterfactual algorithm may lose engagement both through worse matches and through eroded trust, making the 4–12% figures plausible lower bounds.
The same exploration-data identification could transfer to other platforms with recommendation systems and no price variation, provided their exploration policies are documented and balance-tested.
The mid-popularity sweet spot, if general, suggests the long-tail framing misses where recommendations matter: the core problem is not surfacing obscure goods but helping sizeable-but-specific audiences find them.
A testable extension would be an experiment that randomizes recommendations to be less personalized but equally salient; if the model's decomposition is right, engagement losses should concentrate outside the mid-popularity segment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Serious, unusually honest attempt to value a real RecSys at scale, with genuine out-of-sample validation; the counterfactual levels and the targeting claim depend on an untested exogeneity assumption and a partly mechanical decomposition.

read the letter

First thing to know: this is the most credible internal-looking decomposition of recommendation-driven engagement I've seen from a major platform. It ships a real demand model, a real experiment, and an honest set of caveats. But the two headline numbers—4%/12%/16% engagement losses and “93% from targeting, not exposure”—are softer than the abstract suggests. The first depends on an exogeneity assumption that is asserted, not diagnosed. The second is partly a renaming of selection.

What's genuinely new: they embed a low-rank discrete choice model (Kallus-Udell) with a transformer-style sequence model for state dependence, fit to 2M users and ~7000 titles, and exploit the RecSys's own exploration randomization as an instrument. The validation is the best part: a salience experiment gives model-free diversion ratios, and the model reproduces them out-of-sample with R2=0.73. The Appendix A imputation for counterfactual recommendations is also checked (R2~0.69-0.73). They are honest that the levels are lower bounds (trust is baked into the bonus) and that modeling choices shift the levels but not the ordering. That is how a credible platform paper should behave.

Soft spots, in proportion: 1. The identification premise. Section 3 asserts the exploration draws are exogenous but gives no description of the exploration policy, no balance tests, no conditional-independence check. If exploration is targeted to user state (new users, low engagement, churn risk), β_jr in Eq. (1) is biased and all counterfactual numbers inherit that bias. The diversion validation is strong evidence for substitution patterns conditional on the model, but it doesn't identify the level of β_jr. This is addressable—show the randomization diagnostics—but as written it is the weakest link in the causal chain. 2. The targeting decomposition. Eq. (5) is an accounting identity. Because β_jr is homogeneous across users, the “targeting” term R_j = ATT − ATE is generated by logit curvature plus the fact that targeted users have higher baseline utility for the good. It is not an estimated heterogeneous treatment effect. The claim that 93% of the consumption difference comes from “targeting” overstates what the model can identify. It's a useful decomposition of predicted differences, not a causal channel. 3. No uncertainty quantification anywhere. The abstract's confident phrasing would be better with error bars, especially for the counterfactual engagement changes.

Who this is for: IO folks and platform empiricists who want a state-of-the-art case study of valuing recommendations, and anyone working on substitution in attention economies. It deserves a serious referee—I'd send it out rather than desk reject—but the referee should push on the exogeneity diagnostics and ask for the decomposition to be reframed as descriptive.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a scalable discrete-choice model of Netflix viewership in which user utility is a low-rank function of user and good embeddings, a sequence model generates time-varying user states, and recommendations enter as additive placement-specific utility bonuses (billboard, top-25, top-100). Identification relies on variation in recommendations produced by the platform's exploration algorithm, which the authors treat as exogenous. The model is estimated on 2 million U.S. users over 35 days and is validated by comparing model-implied diversion ratios with estimates from a randomized salience experiment (correlation 0.86, R² 0.73). The main applications are counterfactual evaluations of alternative recommender policies (random, popularity, matrix factorization), which yield 16%, 12%, and 4% reductions in engagement relative to the current RecSys, and a decomposition of the incremental consumption of recommended goods into selection, exposure, and targeting components (51.3%, 6.8%, and 41.9%).

Significance. If the identification assumption holds, the paper makes several important contributions: it quantifies the engagement value of a state-of-the-art recommender system relative to both non-personalized and earlier personalized benchmarks; it provides a decomposition suggesting that targeting, not mechanical exposure, drives most of the value of recommendations; and it demonstrates that exploration experiments inside a recommender system can be repurposed to estimate model-free diversion ratios. The out-of-sample validation against experimentally elicited diversion ratios is a genuine strength, as is the candor of footnote 6 and Section 5.1.1 about caveats affecting the level of the counterfactual estimates. The central weakness is that the causal interpretation of all counterfactual and decomposition results rests on an exogeneity assumption about exploration draws that is asserted but not empirically supported.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, 'Identification'] The entire causal chain — the recommendation bonus parameters β_jr in Eq. (1), the counterfactual engagement changes in Table 1, and the selection/exposure/targeting decomposition in Eq. (5) — rests on the claim that 'intrinsic randomization introduced into the recommender system for the purposes of exploration' provides exogenous variation in C_it. The paper does not describe the exploration policy, report balance tests across exploration conditions, or test conditional independence of C_it and ε_ijt. In production systems, exploration is often targeted: it may be triggered by user state (new users, low engagement, churn propensity) or stratified by user characteristics. If so, β_jr is inconsistently estimated and every downstream quantity inherits the bias. The Figure 6 diversion validation, while impressive, does not resolve this concern: diversion ratios are ratios of probability cha
[Section 5.1.2, Eq. (5) and Figure 8] The decomposition in Eq. (5) is a mathematical identity, but the interpretation of R_j as evidence that the RecSys identifies users with 'higher incremental value from targeting' is not directly supported by the model. In Eq. (1), the recommendation bonus β_jr is a common additive term; it does not interact with user characteristics. The 'targeting' component R_j = ATT_j − ATE_j is therefore generated by the logit functional form together with selection of users who have high baseline affinity A_it B_j, rather than by an estimated user-specific treatment-effect parameter. The paper should either estimate a specification with user- or segment-specific recommendation effects, or explicitly state that R_j is a descriptive decomposition implied by the model's nonlinearity, and show that the 41.9% targeting share is robust to alternative functional forms. As written, the headline 'targeting i
[Section 5.1.1, Table 1] The paper reports only point estimates for the headline counterfactual engagement changes (4%, 12%, 16%) and diversity metrics, with no standard errors, confidence intervals, or sensitivity ranges. The text itself notes that 'changes to these modeling choices can significantly affect the resulting engagement and diversity metrics' and footnote 6 states that the estimates are lower bounds. Given that these precise percentages are the paper's central quantitative findings, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of Table 1 to the choice of N (number of recommendations replaced/kept), the consumption threshold defining a view, the imputation procedure used to replace recommendations, and the counterfactual recommendation algorithms' hyperparameters. Without such a robustness analysis, the reader cannot assess whether the 4% versus 12% difference is economically meaningful relative to mo

minor comments (4)

[Section 3 and Section 5.1.1] The consumption threshold (minutes watched to count as a view) is referenced as 'pre-specified' but never stated. The value of N used in the counterfactual recommendations is also not explicitly defined. Please report these quantities.
[Figure 6] The diversion-ratio validation reports correlation and R² but no uncertainty measures around these statistics. Since the diversion estimates are themselves noisy functions of empirical choice probabilities, a confidence interval or bootstrap would strengthen the comparison.
[Table 1] The table reports only percent deviations from the current RecSys. Reporting baseline levels of engagement, HHI, and Gini would help the reader interpret the magnitudes of the deviations.
[Appendix A] The paper describes two imputation procedures but does not clearly state which procedure is used for each Section 5 counterfactual. For the alternative RecSys simulations in Section 5.1.1, please specify whether and how the imputation model is used to fill the replaced slots, and how the utility-based procedure is applied in the catalog-change counterfactuals in Section 5.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the counterfactual engagement numbers and the selection/exposure/targeting shares are estimated outputs of a fitted model, not inputs, and the model is validated against external randomized salience experiments.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, nor any load-bearing argument that reduces to an unverified self-citation. The central quantities—the recommendation bonuses β_jr, the learned embeddings, and the counterfactual engagement changes in Table 1—are estimated from viewership data and then used to simulate alternative recommendation policies; they are not defined as the outcomes they are said to predict. The engagement reductions (4%, 12%, 16%) are computed by replacing the observed C_it with algorithm-generated counterfactual sets and re-evaluating the estimated model, which is a genuine counterfactual exercise rather than a tautology. The decomposition in Eq. (5) is an algebraic identity, and the reported shares (51.3% selection, 6.8% exposure, 41.9% targeting) are empirical outputs of the estimated model, not fitting targets; the fact that the three components sum to 100% is mathematical, but the magnitudes are informative and not circular. The diversion-ratio validation is a meaningful external benchmark: the model is estimated on the control arm and compared to model-free Wald estimates from a separate randomized salience experiment, with an out-of-sample correlation of 0.86 and R² of 0.73. That validation does not reduce to the model's own assumptions. The additive recommendation-bonus specification is an openly stated modeling choice, supported by citation to a prior field experiment rather than by the conclusions of this paper. The identification assumption that the RecSys's exploration randomization is exogenous is a real validity threat and is not supported by randomization diagnostics, but that is a concern about instrument validity and potential bias, not circularity: no equation in the paper defines the value of the current RecSys in terms of itself. The acknowledged caveats in Footnote 6 and Section 5.1.1 about modeling choices and trust are limitations, not circular steps. Overall, the paper's central claims have independent content and are not forced by self-reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central estimates depend on roughly seven free modeling choices whose values are not disclosed, the most important being the per-good placement bonuses β_jr and the exogenously imposed rank d. Identification rests on the exogeneity of RecSys exploration draws, asserted without diagnostics. Under the constant-bonus logit, the 'targeting' term in Eq. (5) is determined by the functional form and the RecSys's selection rule rather than by estimated user-specific treatment effects. No new physical or structural entities are postulated; the recommendation bonus is a reduced-form latent utility component with only indirect evidence.

free parameters (7)

β_jr: per-good × placement recommendation bonus (billboard / top-25 / top-100) = not reported (est. by MLE)
The treatment-effect parameters in Eq. (1). Constant across users — this constancy is what makes the 'targeting' term in Eq. (5) a functional-form consequence. Estimated from data generated under the current RecSys.
Embedding rank d (user × good latent dimension) = not reported
Section 3: 'We exogenously impose the rank of these matrices.' The value of d is not disclosed; it bounds substitution patterns and the capacity of the preference space.
Consumption threshold (minutes watched to count as a view) = pre-specified, not reported
Footnote 3: 'whether a user watches the good for a pre-specified number of minutes.' Changes what counts as a choice and shapes the state-dependence history.
N: number of recommended goods replaced when forcing a good into C_it = not reported
Section 5.1.2: 'we take the average consumption probability of N random goods to be replaced with good j in C_it.' The level of Y_ij(1) for non-recommended j depends on N.
Sequence-model hyperparameters (layers, attention dims, MLP widths, regularization) = not reported
Section 3 / Fig. 2: architecture is described qualitatively; no hyperparameters, no regularization, no seeds. These control the state-dependence channel that identifies preference evolution.
Salience-boost magnitude in the validation experiment = not reported
Section 4.2.1: the boost size sets the scale of the exogenous variation and therefore the strength of the diversion-ratio estimates.
Utility-based imputation temperature (Appendix A softmax) = implicit (logit scale)
Replacement rule exp(u_ij)/Σ exp(u_ik) inherits the logit normalization; used for catalog counterfactuals in §5.2, so new-good counterfactuals reuse the model under evaluation.

axioms (8)

standard math Type-1 iid extreme-value errors induce multinomial logit choice probabilities.
Section 3, following Eq. (1); standard logit assumption.
domain assumption Recommendation effects are captured by an additive, user-invariant utility bonus β_jr; awareness/information-friction channels beyond this reduced form are ignored.
Section 3, 'Model Challenges and Assumptions', following Aridor et al. (2023). Load-bearing for the entire value-of-recommendation counterfactual and for the targeting decomposition.
domain assumption Exploration draws of the Netflix RecSys are exogenous to unobserved preferences conditional on history.
Section 3, 'Identification'. The central identifying assumption; no balance or randomization diagnostics are provided, and exploration may itself be targeted (e.g., bandit-style).
domain assumption User preferences are fully summarized by an attention-weighted function of the complete watch history; no persistent user-specific latent component beyond history.
Section 3 / Fig. 2. Excludes unobserved heterogeneity that is not reflected in history; this is the source of the model's scalability.
domain assumption One discrete choice per day; multiple same-day watches are broken randomly.
Footnote 3: 'we randomly choose among those goods' — random tie-breaking attenuates measured state dependence and compresses multi-watch days into a single choice.
domain assumption The recommendation bonus β_jr is invariant across counterfactual algorithms.
Section 5.1.1 counterfactuals. The authors note (footnote 6) this likely makes engagement estimates lower bounds because user trust in recommendations would change.
domain assumption 'Continue watching' rows are unaffected by interventions and excluded from the choice set; the outside option absorbs this substantial engagement.
Section 2: continue-watching is 'unimpacted by our interventions and counterfactuals' — yet it is a large fraction of actual consumption, so the modeled choice set is partial.
domain assumption Netflix-internal exogenous embeddings (256-d, built from pre-consumption human tags) are valid characteristics for new-good counterfactuals.
Section 5.2 and Appendix B: out-of-sample share R2=0.64 and diversion R2=0.65; validity for catalog changes rests on this internal representation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17981 in / 30441 out tokens · 318572 ms · 2026-08-03T23:06:16.619801+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Personalized recommendation systems shape much of user choice online, yet their targeted nature makes separating out the value of recommendation and the underlying goods challenging. We build a discrete choice model that embeds recommendation-induced utility, low-rank heterogeneity, and flexible state dependence and apply the model to viewership data at Netflix. We exploit idiosyncratic variation introduced by the recommendation algorithm to identify and separately value these components as well as to recover model-free diversion ratios that we can use to validate our structural model. We use the model to evaluate counterfactuals that quantify the incremental engagement generated by personalized recommendations. First, we show that replacing the current recommender system with a matrix factorization or popularity-based algorithm would lead to 4% and 12% reduction in engagement, respectively, and decreased consumption diversity. Second, most of the consumption increase from recommendations comes from effective targeting, not mechanical exposure, with the largest gains for mid-popularity goods (as opposed to broadly appealing or very niche goods).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07280 by Allen Tran, Aur\'elien Bibaut, Guy Aridor, Kevin Zielnicki, Nathan Kallus, Winston Chou.

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: UMAP-projected Good Embeddings (a) Genre Genre Drama Kids Comedies Thrillers Action Documentaries (b) Language Language English Non-English (c) Movie vs. TV Type Movie TV (d) Popularity Popularity 1 0 1 2 3 NOTES: These figures present two-dimensional UMAP projections of learned good embeddings Bj . Panels color points by (a) genre, (b) language, (c) movie vs. TV, and (d) popularity (share). Projections ar… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Modeled (DMODEL g→k ) vs. Empirical (DEMPIRICAL g→k ) Good Diversion NOTES: This figure presents comparison of diversion Dg→k computed from (i) experimental salience interventions (empirical) and (ii) model simulations that emulate the same recommendation restrictions (modeled). For the modelbased diversion estimates, we estimate our model on the control arm and simulate the experimental intervention by i… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Good-level Recommendation Outcomes (a) ATE 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 ATEj/Yj(0) 0 5000 10000 Frequency Median = 1.9 Weighted Mean = 2.8 Mean = 3.6 (b) ATT 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 ATTj/Yj(0) 0 1000 2000 3000 Frequency Median = 103 Weighted Mean = 106 Mean = 1419 (c) Y¯ j T (1) − Y¯ j (0) 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 (Y T j (1) Yj(0))/Yj(0) 0 1000 2000 … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Targeting Responsiveness Heterogeneity (a) Density across Popularity vs Rj 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Rj/Yj(0) 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 Popularity (Title Share) (b) Density across Good Category vs Rj 0.0 0.2 0.4 Density Type Movie TV 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Rj/Yj(0) 0.0 0.2 0.4 Density Kids False True NOTES: We plot the kernel densities of Rj (targeting) by (a) baseli… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Semiparametric inference on identification sets in choice modeling
math.ST 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

New inference theory for the identified interval of counterfactual choice probabilities when the mixing distribution is unrestricted: LP duality, von Mises expansions, and an EM-based membership certificate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Maystre, I

Anderson, A., L. Maystre, I. Anderson, R. Mehrotra, and M. Lalmas (2020). Algorithmic effects on the diversity of consumption on spotify. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2020, pp. 2155–2165. Anderson, C., C. Nissley, and C. Anderson (2006). The long tail. Aridor, G. (2025). Measuring substitution patterns in the attention economy: An experimental appr...

2020
[20]

Seiler, X

Morozov, I., S. Seiler, X. Dong, and L. Hou (2021). Estimation of preference heterogeneity in markets with costly search.Marketing Science 40(5), 871–899. Nguyen, T. T., P.-M. Hui, F. M. Harper, L. Terveen, and J. A. Konstan (2014). Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity.Proceedings of the 23rd Internatio...

2021
[30]

Yuan, H. (2025). Competing for time: A study of mobile applications. Technical report. Zeller, J. (2022). Drip or drop: Consumption constraints & habit formation in tv streaming. Zhou, R., S. Khemmarat, and L. Gao (2010). The impact of youtube recommendation system on video views.Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, 404–...

2025
[117]

Bach, P., V

Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Bach, P., V . Chernozhukov, S. Klaassen, M. Spindler, J. Teichert-Kluge, and S. Vijaykumar (2024). Adventures in demand analysis using ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00382. Basuroy, S., S. Chatterjee, and S. A. Ravid (2003). How critical are critical reviews? the box office effects of film critics, star power, and b...

arXiv 2024
[861]

McKenzie, J. (2023). The economics of movies (revisited): A survey of recent literature.Journal of Economic Surveys 37(2), 480–525. Mnih, A. and R. R. Salakhutdinov (2007). Probabilistic matrix factorization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

2023
[1386]

Gentzkow, R

Bursztyn, L., M. Gentzkow, R. Jim ´enez-Dur´an, A. Leonard, F. Milojevi ´c, and C. Roth (2025). Measuring markets for network goods. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Re- search. Calvano, E., G. Calzolari, V . Denicol`o, and S. Pastorello (2022). Artificial intelligence, product recommendations and concentration. Calvano, E. and M. Polo (2021)...

arXiv 2025

[1] [1]

Maystre, I

Anderson, A., L. Maystre, I. Anderson, R. Mehrotra, and M. Lalmas (2020). Algorithmic effects on the diversity of consumption on spotify. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2020, pp. 2155–2165. Anderson, C., C. Nissley, and C. Anderson (2006). The long tail. Aridor, G. (2025). Measuring substitution patterns in the attention economy: An experimental appr...

2020

[2] [20]

Seiler, X

Morozov, I., S. Seiler, X. Dong, and L. Hou (2021). Estimation of preference heterogeneity in markets with costly search.Marketing Science 40(5), 871–899. Nguyen, T. T., P.-M. Hui, F. M. Harper, L. Terveen, and J. A. Konstan (2014). Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity.Proceedings of the 23rd Internatio...

2021

[3] [30]

Yuan, H. (2025). Competing for time: A study of mobile applications. Technical report. Zeller, J. (2022). Drip or drop: Consumption constraints & habit formation in tv streaming. Zhou, R., S. Khemmarat, and L. Gao (2010). The impact of youtube recommendation system on video views.Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, 404–...

2025

[4] [117]

Bach, P., V

Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Bach, P., V . Chernozhukov, S. Klaassen, M. Spindler, J. Teichert-Kluge, and S. Vijaykumar (2024). Adventures in demand analysis using ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00382. Basuroy, S., S. Chatterjee, and S. A. Ravid (2003). How critical are critical reviews? the box office effects of film critics, star power, and b...

arXiv 2024

[5] [861]

McKenzie, J. (2023). The economics of movies (revisited): A survey of recent literature.Journal of Economic Surveys 37(2), 480–525. Mnih, A. and R. R. Salakhutdinov (2007). Probabilistic matrix factorization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

2023

[6] [1386]

Gentzkow, R

Bursztyn, L., M. Gentzkow, R. Jim ´enez-Dur´an, A. Leonard, F. Milojevi ´c, and C. Roth (2025). Measuring markets for network goods. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Re- search. Calvano, E., G. Calzolari, V . Denicol`o, and S. Pastorello (2022). Artificial intelligence, product recommendations and concentration. Calvano, E. and M. Polo (2021)...

arXiv 2025