An official website of the United States government
Since Rendle and Krichene argued that commonly used sampling-based evaluation metrics are “inconsistent” with respect to the global metrics (even in expectation), there have been a few studies on the sampling-based recommender system evaluation. Existing methods try either mapping the sampling-based metrics to their global counterparts or more generally, learning the empirical rank distribution to estimate the top-K metrics. However, despite existing efforts, there is still a lack of rigorous theoretical understanding of the proposed metric estimators, and the basic item sampling also suffers from the “blind spot” issue, i.e., estimation accuracy to recover the top-K metrics when K is small can still be rather substantial. In this paper, we provide an in-depth investigation into these problems and make two innovative contributions. First, we propose a new item-sampling estimator that explicitly optimizes the error with respect to the ground truth, and theoretically highlights its subtle difference against prior work. Second, we propose a new adaptive sampling method that aims to deal with the “blind spot” problem and also demonstrate the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm can be generalized for such a setting. Our experimental results confirm our statistical analysis and the superiority of the proposed works. This study helps lay the theoretical foundation for adopting item sampling metrics for recommendation evaluation and provides strong evidence for making item sampling a powerful and reliable tool for recommendation evaluation.
more »
« less
On Item-Sampling Evaluation for Recommender System
Personalized recommender systems play a crucial role in modern society, especially in e-commerce, news, and ads areas. Correctly evaluating and comparing candidate recommendation models is as essential as constructing ones. The common offline evaluation strategy is holding out some user-interacted items from training data and evaluating the performance of recommendation models based on how many items they can retrieve. Specifically, for any hold-out item or so-called target item for a user, the recommendation models try to predict the probability that the user would interact with the item and rank it among overall items, which is calledglobal evaluation. Intuitively, a good recommendation model would assign high probabilities to such hold-out/target items. Based on the specific ranks, some metrics likeRecall@KandNDCG@Kcan be calculated to further quantify the quality of the recommender model. Instead of ranking the target items among all items, Koren first proposed to rank them among a smallsampled set of items, then quantified the performance of the models, which is calledsampling evaluation. Ever since then, there has been a large amount of work adopting sampling evaluation due to its efficiency and frugality. In recent work, Rendle and Krichene argued that the sampling evaluation is “inconsistent” with respect to a global evaluation in terms of offline top-Kmetrics. In this work, we first investigate the “inconsistent” phenomenon by taking a glance at the connections between sampling evaluation and global evaluation. We reveal the approximately linear relationship between sampling with respect to its global counterpart in terms of the top-KRecall metric. Second, we propose a new statistical perspective of the sampling evaluation—to estimate the global rank distribution of the entire population. After the estimated rank distribution is obtained, the approximation of the global metric can be further derived. Third, we extend the work of Krichene and Rendle, directly optimizing the error with ground truth, providing not only a comprehensive empirical study but also a rigorous theoretical understanding of the proposed metric estimators. To address the “blind spot” issue, where accurately estimating metrics for small top-Kvalues in sampling evaluation is challenging, we propose a novel adaptive sampling method that generalizes the expectation-maximization algorithm to this setting. Last but not least, we also study the user sampling evaluation effect. This series of works outlines a clear roadmap for sampling evaluation and establishes a foundational theoretical framework. Extensive empirical studies validate the reliability of the sampling methods presented.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10540033
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems
- Volume:
- 2
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2770-6699
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 36
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Traditional offline evaluations of recommender systems apply metrics from machine learning and information retrieval in settings where their underlying assumptions no longer hold. This results in significant error and bias in measures of top-N recommendation performance, such as precision, recall, and nDCG. Several of the specific causes of these errors, including popularity bias and misclassified decoy items, are well-explored in the existing literature. In this paper we survey a range of work on identifying and addressing these problems, and report on our work in progress to simulate the recommender data generation and evaluation processes to quantify the extent of evaluation metric errors and assess their sensitivity to various assumptions.more » « less
-
The strategy for selecting candidate sets — the set of items that the recommendation system is expected to rank for each user — is an important decision in carrying out an offline top-N recommender system evaluation. The set of candidates is composed of the union of the user’s test items and an arbitrary number of non-relevant items that we refer to as decoys. Previous studies have aimed to understand the effect of different candidate set sizes and selection strategies on evaluation. In this paper, we extend this knowledge by studying the specific interaction of candidate set selection strategies with popularity bias, and use simulation to assess whether sampled candidate sets result in metric estimates that are less biased with respect to the true metric values under complete data that is typically unavailable in ordinary experiments.more » « less
-
Offline evaluation protocols for recommender systems are intended to estimate users' satisfaction with recommendations using static data from prior user interactions. These evaluations allow researchers and production developers to carry out first-pass estimates of the likely performance of a new system and weed out bad ideas before presenting them to users. However, offline evaluations cannot accurately assess novel, relevant recommendations, because the most novel recommendations items that were previously unknown to the user; such items are missing from the historical data, so they cannot be judged as relevant. A breakthrough that reliably produces novel, relevant recommendations would score poorly with current offline evaluation techniques. While the existence of this problem is noted in the literature, its extent is not well-understood. We present a simulation study to estimate the error that such missing data causes in commonly-used evaluation metrics in order to assess its prevalence and impact. We find that missing data in the rating or observation process causes the evaluation protocol to systematically mis-estimate metric values, and in some cases erroneously determine that a popularity-based recommender outperforms even a perfect personalized recommender. Substantial breakthroughs in recommendation quality, therefore, will be difficult to assess with existing offline techniques.more » « less
-
As recommendation is essentially a comparative (or ranking) process, a good explanation should illustrate to users why an item is believed to be better than another, i.e., comparative explanations about the recommended items. Ideally, after reading the explanations, a user should reach the same ranking of items as the system’s. Unfortunately, little research attention has yet been paid on such comparative explanations. In this work, we develop an extract-and-refine architecture to explain the relative comparisons among a set of ranked items from a recommender system. For each recommended item, we first extract one sentence from its associated reviews that best suits the desired comparison against a set of reference items. Then this extracted sentence is further articulated with respect to the target user through a generative model to better explain why the item is recommended. We design a new explanation quality metric based on BLEU to guide the end-to-end training of the extraction and refinement components, which avoids generation of generic content. Extensive offline evaluations on two large recommendation benchmark datasets and serious user studies against an array of state-of-the-art explainable recommendation algorithms demonstrate the necessity of comparative explanations and the effectiveness of our solution.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3629171
