HackerPapers

arXiv:1907.06902cs.IR

Are We Really Making Much Progress? A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Approaches

Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, Paolo Cremonesi, Dietmar Jannach

Abstract

Deep learning techniques have become the method of choice for researchers working on algorithmic aspects of recommender systems. With the strongly increased interest in machine learning in general, it has, as a result, become difficult to keep track of what represents the state-of-the-art at the moment, e.g., for top-n recommendation tasks. At the same time, several recent publications point out problems in today's research practice in applied machine learning, e.g., in terms of the reproducibility of the results or the choice of the baselines when proposing new models. In this work, we report the results of a systematic analysis of algorithmic proposals for top-n recommendation tasks. Specifically, we considered 18 algorithms that were presented at top-level research conferences in the last years. Only 7 of them could be reproduced with reasonable effort. For these methods, it however turned out that 6 of them can often be outperformed with comparably simple heuristic methods, e.g., based on nearest-neighbor or graph-based techniques. The remaining one clearly outperformed the baselines but did not consistently outperform a well-tuned non-neural linear ranking method. Overall, our work sheds light on a number of potential problems in today's machine learning scholarship and calls for improved scientific practices in this area. Source code of our experiments and full results are available at: https://github.com/MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation.

arXiv comments
Source code available at: https://github.com/MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation
Journal reference
Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2019)
DOI
doi:10.1145/3298689.3347058
Subjects
cs.IRInformation Retrieval cs.LGMachine Learning cs.NENeural and Evolutionary Computing

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Dec 2019 to Jul 2021. Found in 7 HN submissions from Jul 2019 to Aug 2019. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • I think when looking at least at large scale applications in the context of games (and not just super-expensive showcases), like in the Stockfish chess engine, we see that it's not primarily about depth, it's about architecture design. Reference: start here…

      timkamView on HNParent context

    • +1 to this from someone who learned the math behind ML in a PhD and was looking forward to being a gatekeeper :) My favorite academic paper ever [0] was a comparison against a bunch of dimensionality reduction algorithms and 100 year old PCA was tough to beat! Glad I was able to…

      tomkat0789View on HNParent context

    • Yes, the seeming performance of (especially) neural models compared to traditional models is probably the main factor. Although, some voices[1] argue that traditional or much simpler approaches still often do a similar job compared to super over-engineered models, especially…

      mkasuView on HNParent context

    • There are recent works that question whether "deep" learning algorithms, and in particular neural networks, are really advancing the state of the art of recommender systems: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.06902.pdf (Best Paper Award, RecSys 2019). It is strange that the blog post…

      timkamView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.