Reinforcement Learning (RL) has been sought after to bring next-generation recommender systems to further improve user experience on recommendation platforms. While the exploration-exploitation tradeoff is the foundation of RL research, the value of exploration in (RL-based) recommender systems is less well understood. Exploration, commonly seen as a tool to reduce model uncertainty in regions of sparse user interaction/feedback, is believed to cost user experience in the short term, while the indirect benefit of better model quality arrives at a later time. We focus on another aspect of exploration, which we refer to as user exploration to help discover new user interests, and argue it can improve user experience even in the more imminent term.
We examine the role of user exploration in changing different facets of recommendation quality that more directly impact user experience. To do so, we introduce a series of methods inspired by exploration research in RL to increase user exploration in an RL-based recommender system, and study their effect on the end recommendation quality, more specifically, on accuracy, diversity, novelty and serendipity. We propose a set of metrics to measure (RL based) recommender systems in these four aspects and evaluate the impact of exploration-induced methods against these metrics. In addition to the offline measurements, we conduct live experiments on an industrial recommendation platform serving billions of users to showcase the benefit of user exploration. Moreover, we use conversion of casual users to core users as an indicator of the holistic long-term user experience and study the values of user exploration in helping platforms convert users. Through offline analyses and live experiments, we study the correlation between these four facets of recommendation quality and long term user experience, and connect serendipity to improved long term user experience.

Full text in ACM Digital Library

Collaborative filtering models based on matrix factorization and learned similarities using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have gained significant attention in recent years. This is, in part, because ANNs have demonstrated very good results in a wide variety of recommendation tasks. However, the introduction of ANNs within the recommendation ecosystem has been recently questioned, raising several comparisons in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. One aspect most of these comparisons have in common is their focus on accuracy, neglecting other evaluation dimensions important for the recommendation, such as novelty, diversity, or accounting for biases. In this work, we replicate experiments from three different papers that compare Neural Collaborative Filtering (NCF) and Matrix Factorization (MF), to extend the analysis to other evaluation dimensions. First, our contribution shows that the experiments under analysis are entirely reproducible, and we extend the study including other accuracy metrics and two statistical hypothesis tests. Second, we investigated the Diversity and Novelty of the recommendations, showing that MF provides a better accuracy also on the long tail, although NCF provides a better item coverage and more diversified recommendation lists. Lastly, we discuss the bias effect generated by the tested methods. They show a relatively small bias, but other recommendation baselines, with competitive accuracy performance, consistently show to be less affected by this issue. This is the first work, to the best of our knowledge, where several complementary evaluation dimensions have been explored for an array of state-of-the-art algorithms covering recent adaptations of ANNs and MF. Hence, we aim to show the potential these techniques may have on beyond-accuracy evaluation while analyzing the effect on reproducibility these complementary dimensions may spark. The code to reproduce the experiments is publicly available on GitHub at https://tny.sh/Reenvisioning.

Full text in ACM Digital Library

Off-policy Evaluation (OPE), or offline evaluation in general, evaluates the performance of hypothetical policies leveraging only offline log data. It is particularly useful in applications where the online interaction involves high stakes and expensive setting such as precision medicine and recommender systems. Since many OPE estimators have been proposed and some of them have hyperparameters to be tuned, there is an emerging challenge for practitioners to select and tune OPE estimators for their specific application. Unfortunately, identifying a reliable estimator from results reported in research papers is often difficult because the current experimental procedure evaluates and compares the estimators’ performance on a narrow set of hyperparameters and evaluation policies. Therefore, it is difficult to know which estimator is safe and reliable to use. In this work, we develop Interpretable Evaluation for Offline Evaluation (IEOE), an experimental procedure to evaluate OPE estimators’ robustness to changes in hyperparameters and/or evaluation policies in an interpretable manner. Then, using the IEOE procedure, we perform extensive evaluation of a wide variety of existing estimators on Open Bandit Dataset, a large-scale public real-world dataset for OPE. We demonstrate that our procedure can evaluate the estimators’ robustness to the hyperparamter choice, helping us avoid using unsafe estimators. Finally, we apply IEOE to real-world e-commerce platform data and demonstrate how to use our protocol in practice.

Full text in ACM Digital Library