arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.08232

Behavior-Mining, Generative Conversations, and Collaborative Advisory: the Future of Travel and Tourism Recommender Systems

Alejandro Bellogín·Linus W. Dietz·Francesco Ricci·Pablo Sánchez
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Since the early adoption of e-commerce, travel and tourism has been a lab for the design of recommender systems: tools that help travelers choose destinations, flights, accommodations, and combine them into itineraries. Data-driven recommendation techniques, ranging from case-based reasoning to reinforcement learning, have been adapted to travelers' needs. The research community has produced multifaceted prototypes of travel and tourism recommender systems (TTRSs), which are context-dependent, multistakeholder-oriented, and more recently, addressing sustainability issues, such as overtourism. Despite this enduring work, TTRSs are not widespread yet. We argue that three limitations can explain this: outdated and sparse data sets used to train and validate TTRSs, algorithms that prioritize prediction accuracy over domain-specific dimensions such as novelty and contextual relevance, and a failure to address the specific needs of travelers. Targeted incremental research could address these limitations, but a disruptive factor has meanwhile entered the ecosystem of tourism information and commercialization platforms: generative artificial intelligence. According to market research, GenAI applications are becoming the primary entry point for travelers planning their trips. This forces research to rethink how TTRSs should be designed and which core techniques should be integrated. We claim that future TTRSs, in addition to offering personalized information filtering, should become more flexible advisors that support decision making, integrating multiple data types and AI techniques, from data mining to natural language processing. Moreover, they must transparently balance the conflicting goals of travelers, service suppliers, platform owners, and local communities. We then outline research targets for building more effective TTRSs, fruitfully combining old and new recommendation techniques.

Explore related subjects

cs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alejandro Bellogín, Linus W. Dietz, Francesco Ricci, Pablo Sánchez. 2026-10-06. Behavior-Mining, Generative Conversations, and Collaborative Advisory: the Future of Travel and Tourism Recommender Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08232

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Listwise Explanation of Embedding-Based Rankings via Semantic Chunk Grouping

Dense embedding rankers score documents through contextual sentence- and passage-level representations, yet listwise explanation methods often attribute rankings to isolated words. We study this mismatch and introduce ChunkGroupSHAP, a listwise Shapley method that clusters semantically related chunks across documents into shared features, preserving contextual evidence while bounding the KernelSHAP regression dimension by the group count. Across MS MARCO, FinanceBench, AILACaseDocs, and FinQA with E5-family rankers and BM25, raw chunks improve rank-reconstruction Fidelity over RankSHAP's word features in all 11 dense-ranker settings. The best chunk-group configuration further improves on raw chunks in eight of these settings, with the incremental benefit depending on grouping scope; word features remain strongest in three of four BM25 settings. These results show that explanation units should match the ranking model: contextual chunks better suit dense bi-encoders, whereas words remain effective for BM25. ChunkGroupSHAP supports listwise attribution over contextual evidence through a bounded feature space shared across documents.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Self-Indexing Attention for Compression-Compatible Sparse Long-Context LLM Inference

Sparse long-context inference requires efficient token retrieval in both prefill and decode. Existing methods often use different retrieval strategies for the two stages, preventing one retrieval representation from being reused throughout inference. We propose Self-Indexing Attention, a training-free framework built on a shared transform-domain sign-magnitude representation. The key signs provide a reusable token-level index for grouped prefill selection and decode retrieval, while the same representation remains compatible with external KV-cache compression without separate indexer metadata. This 1-bit index enables efficient retrieval through bitwise operations widely supported by modern accelerators. At 5% attention density, Self-Indexing Attention remains close to dense attention on LongBench and RULER and achieves up to 6.1x prefill and 10.3x decode attention-operator speedups. Experiments with TurboQuant and DeepSeekV4-Flash further demonstrate compatibility with low-bit KV-cache compression and pretrained sparse-attention indexers.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Reading Position Is the Baseline to Beat: A Time-Ordered Evaluation of Personalised Highlight Prediction

A reader's first highlights on a page are the cheapest personal signal a reading product has. The natural plan is to suggest what similar earlier readers marked, and to judge the result against popularity. We argue that the baseline to beat is reading position. In a time-ordered evaluation on one social highlighting platform (7,343 reader-page pairs on 1,511 pages after one highlight), ranking the sentences just below a reader's first highlight, with no other reader's data, puts the next highlight in the top five 47% of the time, against 26% for popularity and 29% for the better of two similarity methods. The baseline depends on the target: over all later highlights that ranking loses to popularity, while popularity discounted by distance from the latest highlight, at the scale with the best average precision of three tried, beats popularity and both similarity methods on both targets. In a comparison specified in advance, neither similarity method shows a gain over popularity in average precision over all later highlights, from one to five highlights, and a gain of +0.01 is excluded. Nor would a gain by itself show that a method has found a reader's preferences: synthetic readers who share one set of preferences produce one, and an evaluation out of time order shows a method where the reader went. The position results are exploratory and unconfirmed. Personalisation inside a document should be evaluated in time order and against reading position.

cs.IR↗