<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>October</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Effects of relevant contextual features in the performance of a restaurant recommender system</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Blanca Vargas-Govea</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Gabriel González-Serna</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Col. Palmira</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Cuernavaca Mor.</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>México</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>blanca.vargas</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>gabriel</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>rafaponce}@cenidet.edu.mx</string-name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2011</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>23</volume>
      <issue>2011</issue>
      <fpage>2</fpage>
      <lpage>6</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Contextual information in recommender systems aims to improve user satisfaction. Usually, it is assumed that the complete set of contextual features is significant. However, identifying relevant context variables is important as increasing their number may lead the system to dimensionality problems. In this paper, relevant contextual attributes are identified by using a simple feature selection approach. Once the features has been identified, it is shown their impact in different performance aspects of the system. This approach was applied to a semantic based restaurant recommender system. Results show that feature selection techniques can be applied successfully to identify relevant contextual data. These results are important to model contextual user profiles with meaningful information, to reduce dimensionality, and to analyze user's decision criteria.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>contextual information</kwd>
        <kwd>feature selection</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>When we want to know new places to eat, it is common to
ask friends for suggestions. Touristic and gastronomic guides
are other alternatives to find good restaurants. However,
friends are likely to know our taste, current location and
favorite environment. Consequently, their suggestions would
be more precise than those provided by the guides. Actually,
recommender systems are common online services that help
users to cope with information overload by retrieving useful
items according to their preferences. Collaborative
Filtering (CF) is a successful technique, which automatizes the
social recommender scheme. CF predicts user’s preferences
considering opinions of users with similar interests, whereas
content-based recommendation systems build a model only
from the user’s favorite items. Common recommendation
approaches only take into account user-item-rating data,
ignoring contextual information. The drawback of this scheme
is the lack of personalization; thus, a tourist visiting Africa
could receive a recommendation of a restaurant located in
Brazil. Information such as time, location, or weather can
generate tailored recommendations according to the current
user’s situation.</p>
      <p>Contextual information has become a key factor to
improve user satisfaction. However, not the totality of the
contextual information given to the system is relevant.
Moreover, if the system requires explicit information, asking for
a huge amount of data can be intrusive. On the contrary, a
lack of information can lead the system to generate poor
recommendations. A careful selection of relevant information
could improve efficiency and predictive accuracy of
recommendation algorithms. To deal with this problem, feature
selection techniques have been used in different domains but
have not been widely exploited in contextual recommender
systems. Usually, contextual information provided to the
system is chosen by experience and it is assumed to be
important.</p>
      <p>This paper presents an analysis about the effects of
contextual attributes in the predictive ability of a recommender
system. The study focuses on Surfeous, a contextual
recommender system prototype based on CF and semantic models.
Relevant variables were identified by applying a simple
feature selection approach. Once the meaningful variables have
been identified, the effects of each relevant contextual
variable in the predictive performance of the system was
analyzed. Results of this research have impact on three aspects:
i) identification of relevant contextual attributes that users
take into account when selecting a restaurant, ii) reduction
of dimensionality, and iii) providing new insights about the
effects of contextual variables in the predictive performance
of recommender systems.</p>
      <p>This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents
an overview of relevant work about the effects of context
and feature selection techniques applied to recommender
systems. Section 3 describes Surfeous and its contextual
features. Section 4 presents general concepts about feature
selection techniques and describes the approach applied to
our analysis. The experiments and results are presented in
Section 5. Finally, conclusions and future research directions
are given in Section 6.
2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>
        Our literature review focuses on two topics: the
importance of context, and the use of feature selection techniques
in recommender systems. As an emerging and under-explored
research area, context-aware recommender systems are
receiving an increasing attention [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Although the effect of
context has not been widely studied, related work reveals
that contextual information is important [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. For example,
in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] the effect of context variables in a content-based
system was analyzed. Several clusters were built according to
the statistic dependence between pairs of context variables.
Next, the system was evaluated over each cluster to observe
changes in recommendations. Results showed that context
variables improve predictive accuracy. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ] it is shown
the benefits of contextual information, both in precision and
using an ontology to exploit semantic concepts. Another
interesting strategy consists on splitting the user profile into
several sub-profiles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Each sub-profile represents the user
in a time period of the day. Using sub-profiles, the system
could recommend music precisely as it took into account
time. It was showed that accuracy could increase by
making recommendations using sub-profiles instead of a single
profile.
      </p>
      <p>
        As a consequence of the integration of contextual
information, adaptability and dimensionality reduction
requirements on recommender systems have increased. To deal with
these problems, machine learning and data mining
techniques have proved to be effective. However, feature
selection and machine learning techniques have mainly been
applied to content-based systems. For example, in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] it
is shown an interactive recommender system based on
reinforcement learning. When the system returns a huge amount
of results, a feature selection algorithm is applied to reduce
the results list. Another approach to feature selection is
presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], where similarity between users is calculated
taking into account the subset of common items that best
describes the user preferences. The results show that
predictive performance can be improved by a careful selection of
item ratings. The recommender system is based on CF and
does not include contextual information. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] the authors
tested their methodology with a recommender system based
on Semantic Web technologies and collaborative filtering.
Their work focuses on the assessment of relevant model
features using decision trees and feature selection techniques.
However, the system was not evaluated with the new learned
models.
      </p>
      <p>In contrast to the reviewed works, in this paper, our
primary goal is to identify relevant attributes and then evaluate
their effects in the system’s predictive performance. A
semantic recommender system that fuses social and contextual
aspects was used as test bed.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>SURFEOUS: WHERE TO EAT?</title>
      <p>Surfeous is a recommender system prototype that uses
social annotations (e.g., tags) and contextual models to find
restaurants that best suit the user preferences. The
recommendations are shown as an ordered list (top-n).</p>
      <p>
        In regard to the social aspect, Surfeous uses an
itembased collaborative filter approach. Its prediction process
is based on the Tso-Sutter [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] extended technique that
includes tags. In contrast to the common two-dimensional
relationship item-attribute, tags are represented as a
threedimensional relation user-item-tag. These three dimensions
are arranged as a three two-dimensional problem: user-tag,
item-tag and user-item by augmenting the standard
useritem matrix horizontally and vertically with user and item
tags correspondingly. Thus, user tags are considered as
items, and item tags are viewed as users in the user-item
matrix. After the extension, user and item based CF have
to be recomputed with the new matrix.
      </p>
      <p>
        In this paper, semantic Web technologies are exploited to
manage the contextual information by using ontologies to
model the user and restaurant profiles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. Surfeous
specifies three context models, each one with the set of attributes
shown in Table 1. The models are described as follows:
1. Service model. It describes the restaurant
characteristics. The model has 23 attributes; 6 of them: cuisine,
alcohol, smoking, dress, accepts (type of payment) and
parking were defined according to http://chefmoz.org,
an online dining guide. Values are selected by the user
from several possible options showed by a GUI when
he/she rates a new restaurant.
2. User model. It describes the user profile. The model
has 21 attributes; 19 of them are provided by the user
when he/she signs into the system the first time or
modify his/her personal information.
3. Environment model. It refers to the time and weather
of the user’s location; their values are acquired from
Web services. This information restricts the search
to available restaurants that have appropriate
installations. In this paper, Surfeous considers a 3 km ratio
from the user’s location to select the restaurants.
      </p>
      <p>To generate the recommendations, Surfeous gets the user
location and searches for the closer restaurants from a
spatial database. With this information, an ontology is created
at execution time. The closer restaurants become the
instances that populate the ontology. Then, to match the
context models, the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL)
is applied to a set of semantic rules. This set of rules was
defined based on a market study of consumer behavior.</p>
      <p>From the attributes of the restaurant profile (i.e., service
model) a relation is created to determine if its value matches
the corresponding value in the user profile. Based on a
space-temporal attribute, an antecedent and a consequent
are created to describe the situation. For example, if the
user does not smoke, the recommended restaurants need a
no-smoking area. The rule is as follows:
smokingArea(R, no) ∧ restaurant(R) → noSmoking(R, true)</p>
      <p>Some examples of the rules and relations are shown in
Table 2. Semantic Web rules use the ontology and infer the
places that fulfill the premises. Results are ranked based on
the number of context rules that hold for each user query:
for each different restaurant a score is computed by counting
and normalizing the rules that hold. The social results are
added to this score considering weights between 0.1 and 0.9
with intervals of 0.1, where 0.0 stands for context-free (i.e.,
only tags) and 1.0 is 100% context (i.e., only rules). In this
paper, fusion is the average of the intervals between 0.1 and
0.9. Our analysis is focused on the service model to explore
what do the users are looking for to select a restaurant.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>FEATURE SELECTION</title>
      <p>Feature selection techniques have proven their usefulness
in machine learning to improve predictive performance, to
relief storage requirements, to provide a better model
understanding, and to ease data visualization.</p>
      <p>Attributes are relevant with regard to a class if their
values can separate one class from the others. For example,
if a tourist has to chose a restaurant to have breakfast,
attributes such as the fax number are likely to be irrelevant.
Conversely, attributes such as cuisine and location are
frequently a decision criterion. When the attributes can be
derived from other attributes, they are redundant and can
be removed. For instance, the restaurant’s address can be
calculated from the latitude and longitude values.</p>
      <p>
        Feature selection finds the minimum subset of attributes
such that the resulting probability distribution of the data
classes is as close as possible to the original distribution
obtained using the whole attribute set. There are two main
methods [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] to feature selection, one is the filter method,
which makes an independent subset evaluation considering
general characteristics of the data such as distance,
information gain, dependency and consistency. The second one is
the wrapper method, which evaluates the attribute subset
using the learning algorithm; its computational cost is high.
In this paper, the filter method was chosen because of its
independence of the algorithm and its low computational cost
in contrast to the wrapper method.
      </p>
      <p>
        To select the relevant context features Las Vegas Filter
(LVF) algorithm [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] was chosen. LVF algorithm generates a
random subset S of N attributes. If the number of attributes
C is less than the best (Cbest) then the algorithm computes
their evaluation measure based on an inconsistency criterion;
if the inconsistency criterion is satisfied, Cbest and Sbest are
replaced in the Solutions list. Otherwise, if the number of
attributes C is equal than the best (Cbest) and the
inconsistency criterion is satisfied, S is added to the Solutions.
M ax was defined from experimentation (77 × N 5) (see
Algorithm LVF).
      </p>
      <p>Inconsistency criterion. The algorithm considers that two
instances are inconsistent if their attributes have the same
values except for their class labels. For the matching
instances, regardless of the class labels, the inconsistency count
IC (Eq.1) of an instance A ∈ S is the number of instances
in S equal to A minus the number of instances of the most
frequent class (k) with the same attributes of S.
(1)
(2)
Algorithm LVF (Las Vegas Filter)</p>
      <p>Input: maximum number of iterations (M ax), dataset
(D), number of attributes (N ), allowable inconsistency
rate (γ)
Output: sets of M features satisfying the inconsistency
criterion (Solutions)
Solutions = ∅
Cbest = N
for i = 1 to M ax do</p>
      <p>S = randomSet(seed); C = numOf F eatures(S)
if C &lt; Cbest then
if InconCheck(S,D) &lt; γ then</p>
      <p>Sbest = S; Cbest = C</p>
      <p>Solutions = S
end if
else if C = Cbest and InconCheck(S,D) &lt; γ then
append(Solutions, S)
end if
end for</p>
      <p>ICS(A) = S(A) − max Sk(A)
k</p>
      <p>The inconsistency rate IR of S (Eq.2) is the sum of the
inconsistency counts divided by the total number of instances.</p>
      <p>IR(S) =</p>
      <p>PA∈S ICS(A)
|S|</p>
      <p>To characterize our feature selection problem, Surfeous
can be seen as a classifier that predicts if a restaurant will
be high rated by the user. Contextual attributes are
represented as a vector, where the class of the training instances
is labeled with the rating values (i.e., 0,1,2). The goal is to
find the minimum set of contextual attributes that obtain
at least the same predictive performance as with the whole
attribute set. Once the minimum attribute subset has been
found, the next step is to analyze the effects of different
contextual attributes.
5.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>EXPERIMENTS</title>
      <p>The experiments have three purposes: i) to identify
relevant contextual attributes, ii) to show that with the
minimum attribute subset, the predictive performance is as least
the same as with the whole attribute set and, iii) to analyze
the effects of relevant contextual attributes.</p>
      <p>Data description. The experiments have been conducted
using the data collected during a seven months period (i.e.,
from July, 2010 to February, 2011). Test users added and
rated new and existing restaurants; they filled the attribute
values described in Section 3. Data comprises 111 users that
contributed with information about 237 restaurants and
accumulated 1, 251 ratings. Possible rating values are 0, 1,
and 2, where 0 indicates that the user does not like the
restaurant, and 2 denotes a high preference. Rating average
is about 11.2 ratings per user; half of the ratings
concentrates on the 38 best rated restaurants. There are
numerous restaurants with few ratings (i.e., 65 restaurants have
1 rating), whereas less than 5 restaurants gathered more
than 15 ratings. Although our sample is not in the range
of thousands of instances, it presents a power law
distribution usually found on recommender systems: a small number
of items dominates the ratings whereas many items obtains
only a few.</p>
      <p>
        Attribute selection. As input to the feature selection
algorithm we built a set of 5, 802 instances. For each rated
item, several instances were created by replacing their
attribute values with different possible values. Each instance
was a vector consisting of the 23 restaurant attributes
described in Table 1, and rating values were given as nominal
class labels. The consistency selector algorithm [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] was taken
from WEKA [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], it involved a best-first search with a
forward approach and 3-fold cross-validation. The remaining
parameters were set to their default values. The output was
a subset consisting of the following 5 attributes: cuisine,
hours, days, accepts and address; 18 features were removed
from the original set (i.e., 78.26% from the whole set).
      </p>
      <p>Tests with Surfeous. Experimental setup is based on a
leave-one-out scheme: an instance of each user was
randomly taken to build the test subset (111 instances) while
the remaining instances became the training subset (1, 140
instances). Seven different datasets were defined: the subset
All consists of the original 23 attributes. B is the minimum
attribute subset (5) calculated with the feature selection
algorithm (i.e., accepts, cuisine, hours, days, address). The
reminder subsets (C-G) were built by removing one different
attribute from B. For each set, 10 executions with
normalized data were performed.</p>
      <p>A test consists in executing Surfeous with each attribute
set and measuring its performance. Evaluation was
performed over three types of recommendations: those
generated by the system without contextual features (i.e.,
contextfree), those generated by the fusion of social and contextual
aspects, and those produced only by the set of semantic
rules. Furthermore, two facets of the system’s performance
were evaluated: its capacity to retrieve relevant items and
its effectiveness to show the expected items in the first
positions of the recommendation lists.</p>
      <p>Figure 1 shows the results for precision. For fusion, the
highest value was obtained with the subset D (0.0788).
Al0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
ino0.05
isc0.04
reP0.03
0.02
0.01
type
sCubseDt</p>
      <p>E</p>
      <p>F</p>
      <p>G
sCubseDt</p>
      <p>E</p>
      <p>F</p>
      <p>G
though context-free precision was not outperformed, in
comparison with the best result there is only a difference of
0.756%. It is a trade-off between feature reduction and
performance. For semantic rules, the subset F (i.e., address,
cuisine, hours and accepts) got the best value (0.0228).
Although semantic rules do not show a good performance, they
contribute with personalized features to the social approach
with similar precision results. The relevant features of the
best subsets are: hours, days, accepts and cuisine.</p>
      <p>Figure 2 shows the results for recall. For fusion, the
majority of the subsets outperformed the context-free performance
(0.2975). Subset C generated the best recall value both for
fusion (0.3246) and for semantic rules (0.1414). As with
precision, the most important attributes are: cuisine, hours and
days. However, recall does not take into account the item’s
position in the recommendations list. Consequently, a
system that shows the useful items in lower positions could
obtain the same recall value than other system, which presents
the expected items in higher positions. Since recall is unable
to measure this aspect, Surfeous was evaluated with NDCG
(Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain). To compute the
value, the top-k list is represented as a binary vector of 10
positions. A value of 1 is assigned to the position where the
expected item appears; otherwise its value is 0. When the
expected restaurant appears in the first position, it achieves
1
the optimal score of 1 (i.e., log2 2 ). Results were averaged
over 23, 294 queries.</p>
      <p>Figure 3 shows that for all the attribute sets, Surfeous
presented the expected items in the top-5 list. For fusion, with
the subset D it is obtained a very similar value (0.4923) to
the context-free performance (0.4994). For semantic rules,
the subset G (i.e.,cuisine, hours, days, accepts) got the best
score. Even though the attribute address appears as
important in the subsets, Surfeous selects the recommended
restaurants based on the user’s location. For this reason,
address is an implicit feature that can be discarded.</p>
      <p>To sum up, the best subset for precision and NDCG is D
(i.e., hours, days, accepts), whereas C (i.e., cuisine, hours,
days) is the best only for recall. Results suggest that the
restaurant opening times and its type of payment are likely
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
G
C0.25
ND0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
type
All B
sCubseDt
to be the most important factors to make a choice. The
majority of the test users are students with irregular meal
hours, thus, they prefer a restaurant with flexible open hours
and several types of payment even if it does not offer their
favorite food.</p>
      <p>Results for recall show that a context-free approach can
be improved with the use of context features. Although
the performance achieved by the semantic rules is low, they
provide the social approach with features that enriches the
decision process. A deep analysis of the set of rules is needed
to determine the reason of their weak performance.</p>
      <p>Identification of relevant contextual features facilitates a
better understanding of the decision criteria of users. This
knowledge is potentially useful to model user/item profiles
with meaningful information, to design efficient user
interfaces, and to improve services based on people preferences.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>In this work a feature selection approach was applied to a
recommender system that fuses social annotations and
contextual models to recommend restaurants. The feature
selection problem was characterized as a classification task.
A subset evaluator was applied to the complete feature set,
then, the effects of the relevant features in the system’s
performance were evaluated. It was shown that by using the
reduced subset of attributes, the system’s performance was
not degraded. Feature selection techniques can contribute to
improve the efficiency of a contextual recommender system.</p>
      <p>As future research direction we want to extend the
approach to another application domain towards deepening the
understanding of contextual information in recommender
systems. Turning the feature selection approach into a
contextoriented technique is an interesting open issue that we would
like to follow. Also, taking into account context variables in
an evaluation methodology is part of our future work.</p>
      <p>The authors thank the reviewers for their useful
comments. This research was sponsored by CONACYT under
grant 290586.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Adomavicius</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Sankaranarayanan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Sen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Tuzhilin</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Incorporating contextual information in recommender systems using a multidimensional approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Transactions on Information Systems</source>
          ,
          <volume>23</volume>
          :
          <fpage>103</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>145</lpage>
          ,
          <year>January 2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Baltrunas</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
            <surname>Amatriain</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Towards time-dependant recommendation based on implicit feedback</article-title>
          .
          <source>In RecSys'09: Workshop on context-aware systems (CARS-2009)</source>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Baltrunas</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Locally adaptive neighborhood selection for collaborative filtering recommendations</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>22</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>31</lpage>
          , Berlin, Heidelberg,
          <year>2008</year>
          . Springer-Verlag.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Bellog</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>´ın, I. Cantador, P. Castells, and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Ortigosa</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Discovering relevant preferences in a personalised recommender system using machine learning techniques</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Preference Learning Workshop</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>82</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>96</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
            <surname>Guyon</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Elisseeff</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>An introduction to variable and feature selection</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Machine Learning Research</source>
          ,
          <volume>3</volume>
          :
          <fpage>1157</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1182</lpage>
          ,
          <year>March 2003</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Hall</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E. Frank,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Holmes</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Pfahringer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Reutemann</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>and I. H.</given-names>
            <surname>Witten</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The WEKA data mining software: an update</article-title>
          .
          <source>SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter</source>
          ,
          <volume>11</volume>
          :
          <fpage>10</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>18</lpage>
          ,
          <year>November 2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Setiono</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A probabilistic approach to feature selection - a filter solution</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 13th International Conference on Machine Learning</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>319</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>327</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Lombardi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Anand</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Gorgoglione</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Context and customer behavior in recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In RecSys'09: Workshop on context-aware systems (CARS-2009)</source>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Mahmood</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Ricci</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Learning and adaptivity in interactive recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Electronic commerce</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>84</lpage>
          , New York, USA,
          <year>2007</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Mobasher</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Contextual user modeling for recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In RecSys'10: Workshop on Context Aware Recommender Systems (CARS-2010)</source>
          , Barcelona, Spain,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ponce-Medell</surname>
          </string-name>
          ´ın,
          <string-name>
            <surname>J. G.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Gonz´alez-</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Serna</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vargas</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ruiz</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Technology integration around the geographic information: A state of the art</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Computer Science Issues</source>
          ,
          <volume>5</volume>
          :
          <fpage>17</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>26</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>K. H. L. Tso-Sutter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L. B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marinho</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and L.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmidt-Thieme</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Tag-aware recommender systems by fusion of collaborative filtering algorithms</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>1995</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1999</lpage>
          , New York, USA,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Vallet</surname>
          </string-name>
          , M. Fern´andez, P. Castells,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Mylonas</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Avrithis</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A contextual personalization approach based on ontological knowledge</article-title>
          .
          <source>17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Contexts and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications Workshop, Riva del Garda, Italy, 28 August</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>