Neural Click Models for Recommender Systems

We develop and evaluate neural architectures to model the user behavior in recommender systems (RS) inspired by click models for Web search but going beyond standard click models. Proposed architectures include recurrent networks, Transformer-based models that alleviate the quadratic complexity of self-attention, adversarial and hierarchical architectures. Our models outperform baselines on the ContentWise and RL4RS datasets and can be used in RS simulators to model user response for RS evaluation and pretraining.

Autoregressive Generation Strategies for Top-K Sequential Recommendations

The goal of modern sequential recommender systems is often formulated in terms of next-item prediction. In this paper, we explore the applicability of generative transformer-based models for the Top-K sequential recommendation task, where the goal is to predict items a user is likely to interact with in the "near future". We explore commonly used autoregressive generation strategies, including greedy decoding, beam search, and temperature sampling, to evaluate their performance for the Top-K sequential recommendation task. In addition, we propose novel Reciprocal Rank Aggregation (RRA) and Relevance Aggregation (RA) generation strategies based on multi-sequence generation with temperature sampling and subsequent aggregation. Experiments on diverse datasets give valuable insights regarding commonly used strategies' applicability and show that suggested approaches improve performance on longer time horizons compared to widely-used Top-K prediction approach and single-sequence autoregressive generation strategies.

RePlay: a Recommendation Framework for Experimentation and Production Use

Using a single tool to build and compare recommender systems significantly reduces the time to market for new models. In addition, the comparison results when using such tools look more consistent. This is why many different tools and libraries for researchers in the field of recommendations have recently appeared. Unfortunately, most of these frameworks are aimed primarily at researchers and require modification for use in production due to the inability to work on large datasets or an inappropriate architecture. In this demo, we present our open-source toolkit RePlay - a framework containing an end-to-end pipeline for building recommender systems, which is ready for production use. RePlay also allows you to use a suitable stack for the pipeline on each stage: Pandas, Polars, or Spark. This allows the library to scale computations and deploy to a cluster. Thus, RePlay allows data scientists to easily move from research mode to production mode using the same interfaces.

Does It Look Sequential? An Analysis of Datasets for Evaluation of Sequential Recommendations

Sequential recommender systems are an important and demanded area of research. Such systems aim to use the order of interactions in a user's history to predict future interactions. The premise is that the order of interactions and sequential patterns play an essential role. Therefore, it is crucial to use datasets that exhibit a sequential structure to evaluate sequential recommenders properly. We apply several methods based on the random shuffling of the user's sequence of interactions to assess the strength of sequential structure across 15 datasets, frequently used for sequential recommender systems evaluation in recent research papers presented at top-tier conferences. As shuffling explicitly breaks sequential dependencies inherent in datasets, we estimate the strength of sequential patterns by comparing metrics for shuffled and original versions of the dataset. Our findings show that several popular datasets have a rather weak sequential structure.

From Variability to Stability: Advancing RecSys Benchmarking Practices

In the rapidly evolving domain of Recommender Systems (RecSys), new algorithms frequently claim state-of-the-art performance based on evaluations over a limited set of arbitrarily selected datasets. However, this approach may fail to holistically reflect their effectiveness due to the significant impact of dataset characteristics on algorithm performance. Addressing this deficiency, this paper introduces a novel benchmarking methodology to facilitate a fair and robust comparison of RecSys algorithms, thereby advancing evaluation practices. By utilizing a diverse set of $30$ open datasets, including two introduced in this work, and evaluating $11$ collaborative filtering algorithms across $9$ metrics, we critically examine the influence of dataset characteristics on algorithm performance. We further investigate the feasibility of aggregating outcomes from multiple datasets into a unified ranking. Through rigorous experimental analysis, we validate the reliability of our methodology under the variability of datasets, offering a benchmarking strategy that balances quality and computational demands. This methodology enables a fair yet effective means of evaluating RecSys algorithms, providing valuable guidance for future research endeavors.

Turning Dross Into Gold Loss: is BERT4Rec really better than SASRec?

Recently sequential recommendations and next-item prediction task has become increasingly popular in the field of recommender systems. Currently, two state-of-the-art baselines are Transformer-based models SASRec and BERT4Rec. Over the past few years, there have been quite a few publications comparing these two algorithms and proposing new state-of-the-art models. In most of the publications, BERT4Rec achieves better performance than SASRec. But BERT4Rec uses cross-entropy over softmax for all items, while SASRec uses negative sampling and calculates binary cross-entropy loss for one positive and one negative item. In our work, we show that if both models are trained with the same loss, which is used by BERT4Rec, then SASRec will significantly outperform BERT4Rec both in terms of quality and training speed. In addition, we show that SASRec could be effectively trained with negative sampling and still outperform BERT4Rec, but the number of negative examples should be much larger than one.

The Long Tail of Context: Does it Exist and Matter?

Context has been an important topic in recommender systems over the past two decades. A standard representational approach to context assumes that contextual variables and their structures are known in an application. Most of the prior CARS papers following representational approach manually selected and considered only a few crucial contextual variables in an application, such as time, location, and company of a person. This prior work demonstrated significant recommendation performance improvements when various CARS-based methods have been deployed in numerous applications. However, some recommender systems applications deal with a much bigger and broader types of contexts, and manually identifying and capturing a few contextual variables is not sufficient in such cases. In this paper, we study such ``context-rich'' applications dealing with a large variety of different types of contexts. We demonstrate that supporting only a few most important contextual variables, although useful, is not sufficient. In our study, we focus on the application that recommends various banking products to commercial customers within the context of dialogues initiated by customer service representatives. In this application, we managed to identify over two hundred types of contextual variables. Sorting those variables by their importance forms the Long Tail of Context (LTC). In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that LTC matters and using all these contextual variables from the Long Tail leads to significant improvements in recommendation performance.

Quality Metrics in Recommender Systems: Do We Calculate Metrics Consistently?

Offline evaluation is a popular approach to determine the best algorithm in terms of the chosen quality metric. However, if the chosen metric calculates something unexpected, this miscommunication can lead to poor decisions and wrong conclusions. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate quality metrics used for recommender systems evaluation. We look at the practical aspect of implementations found in modern RecSys libraries and at the theoretical aspect of definitions in academic papers. We find that Precision is the only metric universally understood among papers and libraries, while other metrics may have different interpretations. Metrics implemented in different libraries sometimes have the same name but measure different things, which leads to different results given the same input. When defining metrics in an academic paper, authors sometimes omit explicit formulations or give references that do not contain explanations either. In 47% of cases, we cannot easily know how the metric is defined because the definition is not clear or absent. These findings highlight yet another difficulty in recommender system evaluation and call for a more detailed description of evaluation protocols.