Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Dimitris Serbos

dblp:198/3337 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Recommender systems · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 50% Approximation and online algorithms · 50%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Recommender systems
fairness-aware recommendation
0.312017
Fairness in Package-to-Group Recommendations · WWW 2017
Recommender systems
group recommendation
0.312017
Fairness in Package-to-Group Recommendations · WWW 2017
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
0.112017
Fairness in Package-to-Group Recommendations · WWW 2017
Mathematical optimization › submodular optimization
coverage problem
0.112017
Fairness in Package-to-Group Recommendations · WWW 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

greedy algorithm · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Fairness in Package-to-Group Recommendations
abstract
Recommending packages of items to groups of users has several applications, including recommending vacation packages to groups of tourists, entertainment packages to groups of friends, or sets of courses to groups of students. In this paper, we focus on a novel aspect of package-to-group recommendations, that of fairness. Specifically, when we recommend a package to a group of people, we ask that this recommendation is fair in the sense that every group member is satisfied by a sufficient number of items in the package. We explore two definitions of fairness and show that for either definition the problem of finding the most fair package is NP-hard. We exploit the fact that our problem can be modeled as a coverage problem, and we propose greedy algorithms that find approximate solutions within reasonable time. In addition, we study two extensions of the problem, where we impose category or spatial constraints on the items to be included in the recommended packages. We evaluate the appropriateness of the fairness models and the performance of the proposed algorithms using real data from Yelp, and a user study.
Dimitris Serbos, Shuyao Qi, Nikos Mamoulis, Evaggelia Pitoura, Panayiotis Tsaparas
WWW1