

(axis cs:4,0) – node \[fill=white\] [$S(|x\rangle, |y\rangle)$]{} (axis cs:5.96,0);

coordinates [ ( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 11 ) ( 12, 17 ) ( 13, 22 ) ( 14, 32 ) ]{}; coordinates

( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 10 ) ( 12, 13 ) ( 13, 18 ) ( 14, 25 )

;

coordinates [ ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 7.31511470083e-06 ) ( 4, 0.000105024146776 ) ( 5, 0.000570578946665 ) ( 6, 0.00249286535328 ) ( 7, 0.00745920069926 ) ( 8, 0.0317610356855 ) ( 9, 0.0618686957303 ) ( 10, 0.120915738795 ) ( 11, 0.179278528288 ) ( 12, 0.240100783919 ) ( 13, 0.35544023332 ) ]{};

coordinates

( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 6.428343871e-07 ) ( 4, 9.22926512908e-06 ) ( 5, 5.01410821938e-05 ) ( 6, 0.000137933892775 ) ( 7, 0.000211768013807 ) ( 8, 0.000193217650065 ) ( 9, 0.000106848258484 ) ( 10, 3.51263075808e-05 ) ( 11, 6.70384432261e-06 ) ( 12, 0.932631829595 ) ( 13, 0.0666165592568 )

;

We see that the dynamic selection, gives a similar performance (Fig \[fig:ExecutionComparison\]) as well as desired accuracy (Fig \[fig:accuracy\]) as would have been given by a static selection function using the Grover search. However this algorithm makes our recommendation system robust with respect to changes in search space and distribution of search space. Further details can be seen from the Appendix.

Approximate Optimization Algorithms 
------------------------------------

The Grover
(axis cs:4,0) – node \[fill = white\ ] [ $ S(|x\rangle, |y\rangle)$ ] { } (axis cs:5.96,0); 

 coordinates [ (10, 7) (11, 11) (12, 17) (13, 22) (14, 32) ] { }; coordinates 

 (10, 7) (11, 10) (12, 13) (13, 18) (14, 25) 

; 

 coordinates [ (0, 0) (1, 0) (2, 0) (3, 7.31511470083e-06) (4, 0.000105024146776) (5, 0.000570578946665) (6, 0.00249286535328) (7, 0.00745920069926) (8, 0.0317610356855) (9, 0.0618686957303) (10, 0.120915738795) (11, 0.179278528288) (12, 0.240100783919) (13, 0.35544023332) ] { }; 

 coordinate 

 (0, 0) (1, 0) (2, 0) (3, 6.428343871e-07) (4, 9.22926512908e-06) (5, 5.01410821938e-05) (6, 0.000137933892775) (7, 0.000211768013807) (8, 0.000193217650065) (9, 0.000106848258484) (10, 3.51263075808e-05) (11, 6.70384432261e-06) (12, 0.932631829595) (13, 0.0666165592568) 

; 

 We examine that the dynamic selection, gives a like performance (Fig   \[fig: ExecutionComparison\ ]) as well as desire accuracy (Fig   \[fig: accuracy\ ]) as would have been given by a static choice function using the Grover search. However this algorithm take our recommendation system robust with obedience to changes in search space and distribution of search space. Further details can be seen from the Appendix. 

 Approximate Optimization Algorithms 
 ------------------------------------ 

 The Grover


(axid cs:4,0) – node \[fill=white\] [$S(|x\rxngle, |y\rangle)$]{} (arus cs:5.96,0);

cmordinztes [ ( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 11 ) ( 12, 17 ) ( 13, 22 ) ( 14, 32 ) ]{}; coordinatxs

( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 10 ) ( 12, 13 ) ( 13, 18 ) ( 14, 25 )

;

coordinater [ ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 7.31511470083w-06 ) ( 4, 0.000105024146776 ) ( 5, 0.000570578946665 ) ( 6, 0.00249286535328 ) ( 7, 0.00745920069926 ) ( 8, 0.0317610356855 ) ( 9, 0.0618686957303 ) ( 10, 0.120915738795 ) ( 11, 0.179278528288 ) ( 12, 0.240100783919 ) ( 13, 0.35544023332 ) ]{};

coordikates

( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 6.428343871e-07 ) ( 4, 9.22926512908e-06 ) ( 5, 5.01410821938z-05 ) ( 6, 0.000137933892775 ) ( 7, 0.000211768013807 ) ( 8, 0.000193217650065 ) ( 9, 0.000106848258484 ) ( 10, 3.51263075808e-05 ) ( 11, 6.70384432261e-06 ) ( 12, 0.932631829595 ) ( 13, 0.0666165592568 )

;

Re see yhwt the dynamic seltctyon, fpvts a similar performance (Fig \[fig:ExscutionBomparison\]) as welk as desired accuracy (Fig \[flg:acfuracy\]) as would hage been givgh br a static seuection function using the Grover search. However this algoxithm makes oyr ggcommendatioi systvm robust witm respewt to cnanges in seargh spece qnd distribution of sxarch space. Further qetails cdn be seen from the Appendhx.

Ap[roxknatd Oktikiaation Aljorithms 
------------------------------------

Ths Grover
(axis cs:4,0) – node \[fill=white\] [$S(|x\rangle, |y\rangle)$]{} coordinates ( 10, ) ( 11, ) 13, 22 ) 14, 32 ) coordinates ( 10, 7 ) ( 10 ) ( 12, 13 ) ( 13, 18 ) ( 14, 25 ; coordinates [ ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, ) 3, ) 4, 0.000105024146776 ) ( 5, 0.000570578946665 ) ( 6, 0.00249286535328 ) ( 7, 0.00745920069926 ) ( 0.0317610356855 ) ( 9, 0.0618686957303 ) ( 10, ) ( 11, 0.179278528288 ( 12, 0.240100783919 ) ( 0.35544023332 ]{}; coordinates 0, ) 1, 0 ) 2, 0 ) ( 3, 6.428343871e-07 ) ( 4, 9.22926512908e-06 ) ( 5, 5.01410821938e-05 ) ( 6, ) ( ) ( 0.000193217650065 ( 0.000106848258484 ) ( ) ( 11, 6.70384432261e-06 ) ( ( 13, 0.0666165592568 ) ; We see that dynamic selection, a similar performance (Fig \[fig:ExecutionComparison\]) as as desired accuracy (Fig \[fig:accuracy\]) as would have given by a static selection function using the Grover search. However this algorithm makes our robust with respect to in search space distribution search Further can be from the Appendix. Approximate Optimization Algorithms ------------------------------------ The Grover


(axis cs:4,0) – node \[fill=white\] [$S(|x\rangLe, |y\rangle)$]{} (aXis cs:5.96,0);

CooRdiNaTes [ ( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 11 ) ( 12, 17 ) ( 13, 22 ) ( 14, 32 ) ]{}; cOordInates

( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 10 ) ( 12, 13 ) ( 13, 18 ) ( 14, 25 )

;

coordinaTEs [ ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 7.31511470083e-06 ) ( 4, 0.000105024146776 ) ( 5, 0.000570578946665 ) ( 6, 0.00249286535328 ) ( 7, 0.00745920069926 ) ( 8, 0.0317610356855 ) ( 9, 0.0618686957303 ) ( 10, 0.120915738795 ) ( 11, 0.179278528288 ) ( 12, 0.240100783919 ) ( 13, 0.35544023332 ) ]{};

cOordinates

( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 6.428343871e-07 ) ( 4, 9.22926512908e-06 ) ( 5, 5.01410821938e-05 ) ( 6, 0.000137933892775 ) ( 7, 0.000211768013807 ) ( 8, 0.000193217650065 ) ( 9, 0.000106848258484 ) ( 10, 3.51263075808e-05 ) ( 11, 6.70384432261e-06 ) ( 12, 0.932631829595 ) ( 13, 0.0666165592568 )

;

We see thAt the DyNAmic SElEctioN, gives a SImILAr pErFoRmaNcE (fiG \[fig:EXecUtionCoMparison\]) as WelL aS desired accuRAcY (Fig \[fig:accUraCy\]) as would havE beEn giveN bY a sTAtic sEleCtion FunctiON using The Grover SeARch. HowEVer this ALGoRithM makes our recommenDAtIOn system robust With reSpECt TO ChaNgeS in search sPaCe and DIstribuTIoN OF SeaRCh space. FurtheR details can BE seEn from ThE ApPEndix.

APproxImATe OPtimization algoRithms 
------------------------------------

The grover


(axis cs:4,0) – node \[f ill=white\ ] [$S (|x \ra ng le,|y\r angle)$]{} (ax i s cs :5.96,0);

coordinates  [ (10 ,  7 ) (11, 1 1 ) ( 1 2 ,1 7  )(13 , 2 2)  (  14,32) ]{};coordinate s
(10, 7 ) ( 11 ,  1 0 ) ( 12,13) ( 13, 18 )  (14, 25  ) 

; 
coor din ates[ ( 0, 0 ) (1, 0 ) (2, 0 ) (3 , 7.315 1 1 47 0083 e-06 ) ( 4, 0.000 1 05 0 24146776 ) ( 5 , 0.00 05 7 05 7 8 946 665  ) ( 6, 0. 00 24928 6 535328)  ( 7 ,  0. 0 0745920069926  ) ( 8, 0.0 3 176 103568 55  )(  9, 0. 06186 86 9 573 03 ) ( 10,0.12 091573879 5 ) (1 1, 0.17 9 2785282 88 ) (  12 , 0 .240 1 00 78 391 9)  (1 3,  0. 3 554 4023332)]{ };

c oord i n a t es
( 0 , 0) ( 1 , 0 ) ( 2, 0) (  3,6 .42 83438 71e-0 7 )(4, 9. 229265 12908 e- 06 ) ( 5, 5.014 1082 1938e-05) (  6 , 0 .0 00137 9 338927 75) (  7, 0.0 0021176 8 013 80 7 )  (  8, 0.000193217650 06 5 )( 9, 0.0 001068 4 82 58 4 84 ) ( 1 0,  3. 5126 3 0 75808 e-05 )( 11, 6. 703844 3 22 61 e-06 )(12, 0. 93 263 182 9595)  ( 1 3, 0.0 66616559 2568) 

;

We see th a t the dynamic se l e ct i on,giv es a simila r pe r form ance (F ig\ [fig: Execu ti o nC o mparison\]) as well  a s desi red a ccuracy (Fig\[fig:accu r a c y\]) aswoul d  h a ve been givenby astatic sel e ction fu nctio n usingthe Grove r search.How eve r t his a lg orithm makeso u r re co mmendat ion  system  ro bus t w ith  r espect to  changes  i nse ar chspace and dist ri but io n o f sea r ch spa ce. F urth er  d e tai ls canb es e en f ro mtheApp en dix.
App r oxi mate Op timizatio n A l gori th ms  
----- ------------- -- ---------- -- --- -

The G rover


(axis cs:4,0)_– node_\[fill=white\] [$S(|x\rangle, |y\rangle)$]{} (axis_cs:5.96,0);

coordinates [_(_10, 7_)_( 11, 11_) ( 12,_17 ) ( 13,_22 ) (_14,_32 ) ]{}; coordinates

( 10, 7 ) ( 11, 10 ) ( 12, 13_)_( 13,_18_)_( 14, 25 )

;

coordinates [_( 0, 0 ) (_1, 0_) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 7.31511470083e-06_)_( 4, 0.000105024146776_) ( 5, 0.000570578946665 ) ( 6, 0.00249286535328 )_( 7, 0.00745920069926 ) ( 8,_0.0317610356855 ) (_9,_0.0618686957303_) ( 10, 0.120915738795_) ( 11, 0.179278528288 ) (_12, 0.240100783919 ) ( 13, 0.35544023332_) ]{};

coordinates

( 0, 0 ) ( 1,_0 ) ( 2, 0 )_( 3, 6.428343871e-07 ) (_4, 9.22926512908e-06_) ( 5, 5.01410821938e-05 )_( 6, 0.000137933892775_) (_7, 0.000211768013807 )_( 8, 0.000193217650065 ) ( 9,_0.000106848258484 ) (_10, 3.51263075808e-05 ) ( 11, 6.70384432261e-06_)_( 12, 0.932631829595_)_(_13, 0.0666165592568_)

;

We see that_the_dynamic selection,_gives_a similar performance (Fig \[fig:ExecutionComparison\]) as well_as_desired accuracy (Fig \[fig:accuracy\]) as would have been_given by a static_selection_function using the Grover_search. However this algorithm makes_our recommendation system robust with respect_to changes_in search_space and distribution of search space. Further details can be seen_from the Appendix.

Approximate Optimization Algorithms 
------------------------------------

The_Grover