Roger Zhe Li

Roger Zhe Li, Julián Urbano, Alan Hanjalic

Direct optimization of IR metrics has often been adopted as an approach to devise and develop ranking-based recommender systems. Most methods following this approach aim at optimizing the same metric being used for evaluation, under the assumption that this will lead to the best performance. A number of studies of this practice bring this assumption, however, into question. In this paper, we dig deeper into this issue in order to learn more about the effects of the choice of the metric to optimize on the performance of a ranking-based recommender system. We present an extensive experimental study conducted on different datasets in both pairwise and listwise learning-to-rank scenarios, to compare the relative merit of four popular IR metrics, namely RR, AP, nDCG and RBP, when used for optimization and assessment of recommender systems in various combinations. For the first three, we follow the practice of loss function formulation available in literature. For the fourth one, we propose novel loss functions inspired by RBP for both the pairwise and listwise scenario. Our results confirm that the best performance is indeed not necessarily achieved when optimizing the same metric being used for evaluation. In fact, we find that RBP-inspired losses perform at least as well as other metrics in a consistent way, and offer clear benefits in several cases. Interesting to see is that RBP-inspired losses, while improving the recommendation performance for all uses, may lead to an individual performance gain that is correlated with the activity level of a user in interacting with items. The more active the users, the more they benefit. Overall, our results challenge the assumption behind the current research practice of optimizing and evaluating the same metric, and point to RBP-based optimization instead as a promising alternative when learning to rank in the recommendation context.

Roger Zhe Li, Julián Urbano, Alan Hanjalic

In a collaborative-filtering recommendation scenario, biases in the data will likely propagate in the learned recommendations. In this paper we focus on the so-called mainstream bias: the tendency of a recommender system to provide better recommendations to users who have a mainstream taste, as opposed to non-mainstream users. We propose NAECF, a conceptually simple but effective idea to address this bias. The idea consists of adding an autoencoder (AE) layer when learning user and item representations with text-based Convolutional Neural Networks. The AEs, one for the users and one for the items, serve as adversaries to the process of minimizing the rating prediction error when learning how to recommend. They enforce that the specific unique properties of all users and items are sufficiently well incorporated and preserved in the learned representations. These representations, extracted as the bottlenecks of the corresponding AEs, are expected to be less biased towards mainstream users, and to provide more balanced recommendation utility across all users. Our experimental results confirm these expectations, significantly improving the recommendations for non-mainstream users while maintaining the recommendation quality for mainstream users. Our results emphasize the importance of deploying extensive content-based features, such as online reviews, in order to better represent users and items to maximize the de-biasing effect.