RRepoGEO

REPOGEO REPORT · LITE

RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers

Default branch main · commit 5e487762 · scanned 6/16/2026, 8:58:10 AM

GitHub: 988 stars · 143 forks

AI VISIBILITY SCORE
17 /100
Critical
Category recall
0 / 2
Not recommended in any query
Rule findings
1 pass · 0 warn · 1 fail
Objective metadata checks
AI knows your name
1 / 3
Direct prompts that named your repo
HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

Action plan is what to do next — copy-pasteable changes prioritized by impact. Category visibility is the real GEO test: when a user asks an AI a brand-free question that should surface RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers, does the AI actually recommend you — or your competitors? Objective checks verify the metadata signals AI engines weight first. Self-mention check detects whether AI even knows you exist by name.

Action plan — copy-paste fixes

3 prioritized changes generated by gemini-2.5-flash. Mark items done after you ship the fix.

OVERALL DIRECTION
  • highreadme#1
    Reposition the README H1 to specify category

    Why:

    CURRENT
    Awesome-RSPapers
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Awesome-RSPapers: A curated collection of cutting-edge research papers in Recommender Systems, organized by task and topic from top-tier conferences.
  • hightopics#2
    Add relevant topics to the repository

    Why:

    CURRENT
    (none)
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    recommender-systems, rs, papers, research, awesome-list, machine-learning, deep-learning, ai, sigir, recsys, kdd
  • mediumlicense#3
    Add a LICENSE file to the repository

    Why:

    CURRENT
    (no LICENSE file detected — the repo has no recognizable license)
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Create a `LICENSE` file in the repository root with the text of the MIT License.

Category GEO backends resolved for this scan: google/gemini-2.5-flash, deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash

Category visibility — the real GEO test

Brand-free queries asked to google/gemini-2.5-flash. Did AI recommend you, or someone else?

Same questions for every model — switch tabs to compare answers and rankings.

Recall
0 / 2
0% of queries surface RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers
Avg rank
—
Lower is better. #1 = top recommendation.
Share of voice
0%
Of all named tools, what % are you?
Top rival
arXiv.org
Recommended in 1 of 2 queries
COMPETITOR LEADERBOARD
  1. arXiv.org · recommended 1×
  2. ACM Digital Library · recommended 1×
  3. RecSys (ACM Conference on Recommender Systems) · recommended 1×
  4. KDD (ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining) · recommended 1×
  5. WSDM (ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining) · recommended 1×
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    Where can I find recent research papers on various recommender system algorithms and techniques?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. arXiv.org
    2. ACM Digital Library
    3. RecSys (ACM Conference on Recommender Systems)
    4. KDD (ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining)
    5. WSDM (ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining)
    6. IEEE Xplore Digital Library
    7. ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining)
    8. BigData (IEEE International Conference on Big Data)
    9. Google Scholar
    10. Semantic Scholar
    11. Microsoft Academic
    12. TheWebConf (formerly WWW - International World Wide Web Conference)

    AI recommended 12 alternatives but never named RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    What are the latest advancements in sequential or session-based recommender systems research?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. BERT4Rec
    2. SASRec
    3. NextItNet
    4. SR-GNN
    5. GCSAN
    6. SGL
    7. CL4SRec
    8. RecVAE
    9. DRN

    AI recommended 9 alternatives but never named RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer

Objective checks

Rule-based audits of metadata signals AI engines weight most.

  • Metadata completeness
    fail

    Suggestion:

  • README presence
    pass

Self-mention check

Does AI even know your repo exists when asked about it directly?

  • Compared to common alternatives in this category, what is the core differentiator of RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers?
    pass
    AI did not name RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers — likely talking about a different project

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • If a team adopts RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers in production, what risks or prerequisites should they evaluate first?
    pass
    AI named RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • In one sentence, what problem does the repo RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers solve, and who is the primary audience?
    pass
    AI did not name RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers — likely talking about a different project

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

Embed your GEO score

Drop this badge into the README of RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers. It auto-updates whenever the report is rescanned and links back to the latest report — easy public proof that you care about AI discoverability.

RepoGEO badge previewLive preview
MARKDOWN (README)
[![RepoGEO](https://repogeo.com/badge/RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers.svg)](https://repogeo.com/en/r/RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers)
HTML
<a href="https://repogeo.com/en/r/RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers"><img src="https://repogeo.com/badge/RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers.svg" alt="RepoGEO" /></a>
Pro

Subscribe to Pro for deep diagnoses

RUCAIBox/Awesome-RSPapers — Lite scans stay free; this card itemizes Pro deep limits vs Lite.

  • Deep reports10 / month
  • Brand-free category queries5 vs 2 in Lite
  • Prioritized action items8 vs 3 in Lite