A Survey on Bundle Recommendation: Methods, Applications, and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, bundle recommendation systems have gained significant attention in both academia and industry due to their ability to enhance user experience and increase sales by recommending a set of items as a bundle rather than individual items. This survey provides a comprehensive review on bundle recommendation, beginning by a taxonomy for exploring product bundling. We classify it into two categories based on bundling strategy from various application domains, i.e., discriminative and generative bundle recommendation. Then we formulate the corresponding tasks of the two categories and systematically review their methods: 1) representation learning from bundle and item levels and interaction modeling for discriminative bundle recommendation; 2) representation learning from item level and bundle generation for generative bundle recommendation. Subsequently, we survey the resources of bundle recommendation including datasets and evaluation metrics, and conduct reproducibility experiments on mainstream models. Lastly, we discuss the main challenges and highlight the promising future directions in the field of bundle recommendation, aiming to serve as a useful resource for researchers and practitioners. Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/WUT-IDEA/bundle-recommendation-survey.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".