A Serendipity-Oriented Personalized Trip Recommendation Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized trip recommendation attempts to recommend a sequence of Points of Interest (POIs) to a user. Compared with a single POI recommendation, the POIs sequence recommendation is challenging. There are only a couple of studies focusing on POIs sequence recommendations. It is a challenge to generate a reliable sequence of POIs. The two consecutive POIs should not be similar or from the same category. In developing the sequence of POIs, it is necessary to consider the categories of consecutive POIs. The user with no recorded history is also a challenge to address in trip recommendations. Another problem is that recommending the exact and accurate location makes the users bored. Looking at the same kind of POIs, again and again, is sometimes irritating and tedious. To address these issues in recommendation lies in searching for the sequential, relevant, novel, and unexpected (with high satisfaction) Points of Interest (POIs) to plan a personalized trip. To generate sequential POIs, we will consider POI similarity and category differences among consecutive POIs. We will use serendipity in our trip recommendation. To deal with the challenges of discovering and evaluating user satisfaction, we proposed a Serendipity-Oriented Personalized Trip Recommendation (SOTR). A compelling recommendation algorithm should not just prescribe what we are probably going to appreciate but additionally recommend random yet objective elements to assist with keeping an open window to different worlds and discoveries. We evaluated our algorithm using information acquired from a real-life dataset and user travel histories extracted from a Foursquare dataset. It has been observationally confirmed that serendipity impacts and increases user satisfaction and social goals. Based on that, SOTR recommends a trip with high user satisfaction to maximize user experience. We show that our algorithm outperforms various recommendation methods by satisfying user interests in the trip.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".