--- name: recsys-related-work description: Use when positioning an ACM RecSys submission against recommender-systems literature and its neighbors (SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, UAI), including the reproducibility-critique line, arXiv and prior versions, concurrent work, ACM Digital Library archival status, and the citation coverage RecSys reviewers expect across recommendation subfields. --- # RecSys Related Work Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current Call for Contributions for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors. ## Positioning checks - Separate the **recommendation** contribution from generic ML improvement: a new ranking objective, user/item modeling idea, evaluation protocol, off-policy estimator, or empirical insight about deployed behavior. - Cover the recommendation subfields your claim touches: collaborative filtering, sequential/ session models, off-policy/counterfactual evaluation, fairness/diversity/exposure, and — for any empirical claim — the **reproducibility-critique** line. - Treat ACM Digital Library, journal, and formal conference proceedings as archival unless current rules say otherwise. - Cite arXiv and prior-version work so double-blind review survives; do not point reviewers to identity-revealing pages. - Explain overlap with any concurrent or prior version, and do not submit duplicate archival work. ## Neighbor-venue coverage table RecSys is a single-domain venue, but its neighbors publish recommendation-relevant work. A reviewer checks whether you cite the *right* neighbor, not just RecSys itself. | Neighbor venue | What it contributes to your related work | Reviewer check | |---|---|---| | SIGIR | Ranking models, IR evaluation, neural retrieval | Did you distinguish recommendation from ad-hoc retrieval framing? | | KDD | Large-scale mining, the sampled-metrics critique | Is the scalability or evaluation-methodology neighbor acknowledged? | | WSDM / TheWebConf | Web-scale recommendation, graph and CF methods | Is the nearest web-recommendation method compared? | | UAI | Foundational ranking (e.g., BPR) and probabilistic modeling | Are canonical recommendation methods cited to their true venue, not RecSys? | | Reproducibility line | "Are we really making much progress?" and follow-ups | Does your evaluation answer the tuned-baseline critique head on? | A bibliography that cites only RecSys papers tells a reviewer you may have missed the method that already solved this at a neighbor venue — a recognizable reject pattern that benchmark strength does not repair. ## Positioning vignette Imagine the paper proposes an exposure-corrected session ranker. Its nearest neighbors: a SIGIR neural ranker with no exposure correction, a KDD paper on sampled-metric bias, and a prior RecSys counterfactual-embedding paper. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — exposure handling where the SIGIR line ignored it, full-ranking evaluation answering the KDD critique, and a session-level objective where the prior RecSys work was static. ## Concurrent-work judgment calls - Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify. - Your own prior version: verify its archival status against the current CFP and phrase the citation so double-blind review survives. - When unsure whether a venue is archival, declare the overlap on the submission form rather than gambling on a chair's interpretation. ## Output format ```text [Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky [Closest subfields] [Nearest 3 works] distinction (with true venue)> [Archival-overlap risk] [Novelty sentence] ```