 value, even if some pieces of information about attributes are not known;

-   our model is robust to missing information and still performs well for detecting changes of context.

To answer these questions, we randomly delete values of attributes in our dataset, until we reach an intended rate of sparsity. We test the performances of our model for rates of sparsity between 1 and 99%. Because of that random deletion, some similarity measures between two items, or even some relative diversity measures could not be computed. As soon as we can compute the similarity on at least one attribute for at least one pair of items (the target item and one of the items within the history), a value of relative diversity can be set for the target. Otherwise, if we cannot compute any similarity per attribute on any pair of items, we set the relative diversity of the target to *NaN*. Let us notice that we set the diversity to *NaN*, because a value of 0 would indicate that there is no diversity brought by the current item, not that the diversity cannot be calculated. Of course, we do not consider NaN values as changes of context (see Equation \[eq:detection\]).

In the last experiment (**H3**), the purpose is to examine the consequences of having several types of items in our dataset on context detection performances. Indeed, the previous experiments were tested with a single type of items but in practice, this may not be always the case. When the target item and the history items are of the same type (*i.e.* music), the relative diversity can be computed on all attributes for all items (except when there are missing data). However, when these types may change from a consultation to another, the relative diversity can only be computed for common attributes (see Figure \[fig:dance\]). Considering that our initial dataset contained a single type of items (songs), we modified it in order to test our third hypothesis. Criteria for simulating the different types of items were as follows: First, a number of types of items is determined, and all items are randomly assigned to a type of items. Afterward, for each type of items, we randomly select a subset of $x$ attributes (from the whole set of attributes) that will characterize these items. Another parameter, called $y$, corresponds to the minimum number of attributes in common with all the other types of items. Let us notice that the common attributes between pairs of types of items are not necessarily the same (*i.e.* ($A_{type1
value, even if some pieces of information about attributes are not known; 

 -    our exemplar is full-bodied to missing information and however perform well for detecting changes of context. 

 To suffice these questions, we randomly delete values of attributes in our dataset, until we achieve an intended rate of sparseness. We test the performances of our model for rates of sparseness between 1 and 99% . Because of that random deletion, some similarity measures between two item, or even some relative diversity measure could not be computed. As soon as we can compute the similarity on at least one property for at least one pair of items (the prey item and one of the item within the history), a value of relative diversity can be set for the target. Otherwise, if we cannot calculate any similarity per attribute on any pair of items, we set the relative diversity of the prey to * NaN *. Let us notice that we set the diversity to * NaN *, because a value of 0 would indicate that there is no diversity brought by the current item, not that the diversity cannot be calculate. Of course, we do not consider NaN value as change of context (see Equation   \[eq: detection\ ]). 

 In the last experiment (* * H3 * *), the function is to examine the consequences of having several type of items in our dataset on context detection performances. Indeed, the previous experiments were test with a single type of items but in practice, this may not be constantly the case. When the prey item and the history items are of the same type (* i.e. * music), the relative diverseness can be computed on all attributes for all items (except when there are missing data). However, when these types may change from a consultation to another, the proportional diversity can only be computed for common attributes (attend Figure   \[fig: dance\ ]). Considering that our initial dataset incorporate a single character of items (songs), we change it in order to test our third guess. Criteria for simulating the different types of items were as follows: First, a number of types of items is determined, and all items are randomly delegate to a type of items. subsequently, for each type of items, we randomly select a subset of $ x$ attributes (from the whole set of attributes) that will qualify these items. Another parameter, called $ y$, corresponds to the minimum number of attributes in common with all the early types of items. Let us notice that the common attributes between pairs of types of item are not necessarily the same (* i.e. * ($ A_{type1
 vapue, even if some pieces uf information cvout avtributss are nut known;

-   our model is robudt to mussing information and still pegforms weol fie detectinj changes of ckktext.

Co answer these auestions, fe randomly denege values of attributes in our datasee, until wf reach an intgnded wate of sparsity. We test the performandes of mur model for rates of sparsity between 1 anf 99%. Because of that random delgfiog, some similafity measugzs between jwo items, or even some relative aiverxity measutzw clold not be cimputvd. As soon as we can wompute the similaritn on et lwast one attribute foc at least one pair jf items (dhz target item and one od the iteks wkrhiv tge hjstory), a talue of remative diveesity can be set fot eye target. Othsrwise, is we cannot compute any similarity per dttdibute on any pair of irems, we set the relatlve diverfity of the target to *NaN*. Let us notice that we sat thx aivtrwity gi *JaN*, because a value of 0 would indicate that trsrt ix no diversity brought by tje surrent item, vot thcf fhe diversity cannlt be cwlculqted. Of cjursr, we do not consider NaN vaoues as chanyes of context (see Eqbation \[eq:deteetion\]).

Im the last experiment (**H3**), the 'urposs is to exaline the dunsequences of hxvikg veveral uhpes of items in jur datasxt on contexg dejection performanfes. Ikgeed, the previous fxpernmentv were teshed with a single type of items but in practive, thps may noc be akways the casq. When the taryet item and ghe historj items ace of the saie type (*i.e.* muvlc), the relatmve diverfity can be comojted on all atyributes yjr aol items (except whcn thgrs are missing dcua). Yowever, when thrse ty[ed kar change from a cunsjktatiun to anothcr, ghe telative diversity cdn ohly be computed fot gommon atjributes (fee Figure \[fig:cance\]). Considering uhat onr inivial dstafet contained a single type of items (sojgs), we modified it ln otder to tesc our third hypothesis. Criteria for simuoating the differgnt types of items wete ss follows: Hirst, w number mf types of items is determined, and akl items are randomly assigted tl a type of items. Afterward, for each type of items, we randomly select a sybset of $x$ attribufes (grom nhe chole sqt oh ettributes) that wpll characterize these items. Anovher paramatzr, called $y$, corresponds to thr oinimum numbet of attributes in common sith all the other types of items. Let ux notice that the common attribures bstween paics of types of items are nmt nexessarioy tme same (*i.e.* ($A_{tyoe1
value, even if some pieces of information are known; - model is robust performs for detecting changes context. To answer questions, we randomly delete values of in our dataset, until we reach an intended rate of sparsity. We test performances of our model for rates of sparsity between 1 and 99%. Because that deletion, similarity between two items, or even some relative diversity measures could not be computed. As soon as can compute the similarity on at least one for at least one of items (the target item one the items the a of relative diversity be set for the target. Otherwise, if we cannot compute any similarity per attribute on any pair items, we relative diversity the to Let us notice set the diversity to *NaN*, because 0 would indicate that there is no diversity by the item, not that the diversity cannot calculated. Of course, we do not consider NaN as changes of context (see Equation \[eq:detection\]). In the last experiment (**H3**), the purpose is the consequences of having types of items our on detection Indeed, the experiments were tested with a single type of items but in this may not be always the case. When the target the items are of same type (*i.e.* music), relative can be computed on for items are data). when these types may from a consultation to another, relative diversity can only (see Figure \[fig:dance\]). Considering that our initial dataset a single type of items (songs), we it in order to test our third hypothesis. Criteria for simulating the types of as follows: First, a number of types of is determined, and all are randomly assigned to a type of items. Afterward, each of items, randomly select a of $x$ attributes the whole set that will these Another corresponds to the minimum number of in with all the other types items. notice that the common attributes between pairs of types of items are not necessarily the ($A_{type1
 value, even if some pieces of inFormation aBout aTtrIbuTeS are Not kNown;

-   our model is RObusT to missing information aNd stiLl PErfoRMs Well fOr detecTInG CHanGeS oF coNtEXt.

to ansWer These quEstions, we rAndOmLy delete valuES oF attributeS in Our dataset, unTil We reacH aN inTEnded RatE of spArsity. wE test tHe performAnCEs of ouR Model foR RAtEs of Sparsity between 1 anD 99%. beCAuse of that randOm deleTiON, sOME siMilArity measuReS betwEEn two itEMs, OR EVen SOme relative diVersity measURes Could nOt Be cOMputed. as sooN aS We cAn compute thE simIlarity on At leasT One attrIBute for At leasT onE paIr of ITeMs (The TaRGet ITeM anD One Of the iteMs WiThin tHe hiSTORY), a vaLue Of reLativE diversity can Be sEt foR The TargeT. OtheRwisE, iF we caNnot coMpute AnY similarity per aTtriBute on any PaiR oF itEmS, we seT The relAtiVe dIversitY of the tARgeT tO *nAn*. LEt us notice that we seT tHE DiVersity tO *NaN*, beCAuSe A Value of 0 wOuLd iNdicATE that TherE Is No diversIty broUGhT bY the curReNt item, NoT thAt tHe divERsitY cannoT be calcuLated. oF course, we do not COnsider NaN valUEs AS ChANges Of cOntext (see EqUatiON \[eq:dEtecTIoN\]).

In THe lasT expeRiMEnT (**h3**), the purpose is to examInE the coNsequEnces of having Several typES OF items in Our dATaSEt on context detEctioN performanCEs. Indeed, The prEvious exPeriments WERe tested WitH a sIngLe tYPE oF items but in prACTice, ThIs may noT be Always tHe cAse. wheN thE tArget item And the hiStOrY iTeMs aRe of tHE same typE (*i.E.* muSiC), thE relaTIve divErsitY can Be CoMPutEd on all ATtRIButeS fOr All iTemS (eXcept When THerE are misSing data). HOweVEr, whEn ThEse typeS may change froM a ConsultatiOn To aNother, THE relativE diversity can only be compUTed for cOmmOn attRibuTes (see FigUre \[Fig:danCe\]). CONsiderIng thaT our iNiTiaL DAtaseT COnTaiNeD a single tyPE Of iTems (sOnGs), we ModifieD it in order to test ouR ThiRd hypothesis. CRitEria FOR sImuLAtINg tHe DIffEREnt types of items Were as follOwS: fiRst, a number OF tyPeS of itemS is deteRmineD, And all iTems are raNdomly assIgNed tO A TypE of items. AfTerward, fOr each typE Of iteMS, wE randOmlY selecT a SubSet of $X$ attriBUteS (from The whoLe Set of aTtribUtEs) that wiLl characterize these itemS. AnothEr parAmeTer, called $Y$, coRResPonds to thE minImum number Of aTtrIbuteS in COmmon With ALl The OTher tYpes OF items. Let US nOtiCE ThAt the common ATTRibUtes bEtwEEn pairS of tYpes of items are not NEcessarily the sAme (*i.E.* ($a_{TypE1
 value, even if some piece s of infor matio n a bou tattr ibut es are not kno w n;
-   our model is robus t tomi s sing in forma tion an d  s t i llpe rf orm sw el l for  de tecting  changes o f c on text.

To an s we r these qu est ions, we ran dom ly del et e v a luesofattri butesi n ourdataset,un t il wer each an i nt ende d rate of sparsit y .W e test the per forman ce s  o f our  mo del for ra te s ofs parsity be t w e en1  and 99%. Bec ause of tha t  ra ndom d el eti o n, som e sim il a rit y measuresbetw een two i tems,o r evens ome rel ativediv ers itym ea su res  c o uld no t b e  co mputed.As  s oon a s we c a n  com put e th e sim ilarity on at  le asto neattri buteforat  leas t onepairof  items (the tar getitem andone  o f t he  item s  withi n t hehistory ), a va l ueof r e la tive diversity can  b e se t for th e targ e t.  O t herwise,  i f w e ca n n ot co mput e  a ny simil arityp er  a ttribut eon any  p air  of  item s , we  set t he relat ive d i versity of the target to *Na N *. L et us n oti ce that wesett he d iver s it y t o  *NaN *, be ca u se a value of 0 wouldin dicate  that  there is nodiversityb r o ught bythec ur r ent item, notthatthe divers i ty canno t becalculat ed. Of co u r se, we d o n otcon sid e r  N aN values asc h ange sof cont ext  (see E qua tio n \ [eq :d etection\ ]).

Inth ela st  ex perim e nt (**H3 ** ),th e p urpos e  is to  exam ineth ec ons equence s  o f havi ng  s ever alty pes o f it e msin ourdataset o n c o ntex tde tection  performances .Indeed, th epre viouse x periment s were tested with a si n gle typ e o f ite ms b ut in pra cti ce, th ism ay not  be al waysth e c a s e. Wh e n  t heta rget itema n d t he hi st oryitems a re of the same typ e  (* i.e.* music),  th e re l a ti ved iv e rsi ty can b e computed on a ll attribu te s  f or all ite m s ( ex cept wh en ther e are missing  data). H owever, w he n th e s e t ypes may c hange fr om a cons u ltati o nto an oth er, th erel ative  diver s ity  canonly b ecomput ed fo rcommon a ttributes (see Figure \ [fig:d ance\ ]).  Consider ing tha t our ini tial  dataset c ont ain ed asin g le ty pe o f  i tem s  (son gs), we modifi e diti n  o rder to tes t o urthird  hy p othesi s. C riteria for simul a ting the diffe rent t ype s o f  ite ms  were as follo ws:  F i r st, a nu mb er of types  of item si s det ermine d, and  all it e m sa re ran doml y a ssigned t o a  t y pe of i te ms .  After ward ,for ea ch typ e  ofi t ems, we randomly  sele c t  a su b set  of $ x$  attrib u tes(from thewhole set o f attr ibut es) t hat wil lcharac ter iz e these it e ms. Anoth er pa rameter ,call ed$y$, c orre s p ondsto t he  mi nimum num b e ro fat t rib utes  in c om monwith allt he other  ty p es of i te ms. L et usn ot i c e that the  co mmona t tributes b e twee n  p a irs o f type s of i tems ar e  no tnecessa ril y the same(*i.e.* ( $ A_{ ty pe1
 value,_even if_some pieces of information_about attributes_are_not known;

-__ our model_is robust to_missing information and still_performs well for_detecting_changes of context.

To answer these questions, we randomly delete values of attributes in our_dataset,_until we_reach_an_intended rate of sparsity. We_test the performances of our_model for_rates of sparsity between 1 and 99%. Because_of_that random deletion,_some similarity measures between two items, or even some_relative diversity measures could not be_computed. As soon_as_we_can compute the similarity_on at least one attribute for_at least one pair of items_(the target item and one of the_items within the history), a value_of relative diversity can be_set for_the target. Otherwise, if we_cannot compute any_similarity per_attribute on any_pair of items, we set the_relative diversity of_the target to *NaN*. Let us_notice_that we set_the_diversity_to *NaN*,_because a value_of_0 would_indicate_that there is no diversity brought_by_the current item, not that the diversity_cannot be calculated. Of_course,_we do not consider_NaN values as changes of_context (see Equation \[eq:detection\]).

In the last experiment_(**H3**), the_purpose is_to examine the consequences of having several types of items in_our dataset on context detection performances._Indeed, the previous experiments_were tested_with_a single type_of_items but_in practice, this may not be always_the case._When the target item and the_history items are of_the_same type (*i.e.* music), the relative_diversity can be computed on all_attributes for all items (except_when_there_are missing data). However, when_these types may change from a_consultation to another,_the relative diversity can only be computed_for_common attributes (see Figure \[fig:dance\]). Considering that_our_initial dataset contained a single type_of_items_(songs), we modified it in_order to test our third hypothesis._Criteria for simulating the different types of items were_as follows: First,_a number of types of_items_is_determined, and all items are randomly assigned to a type_of items._Afterward, for each_type of items, we randomly select a subset of $x$_attributes (from the whole set of attributes)_that will characterize these items. Another parameter, called $y$, corresponds to_the minimum number of attributes in common with_all the other types of items. Let_us notice that the_common_attributes between pairs of types of items_are_not_necessarily_the same (*i.e.*_($A_{type1