The Recommender Systems community is paying increasing attention to novelty and diversity as key qualities beyond accuracy in real recommendation scenarios. Despite the raise of interest and work on the topic in recent years, we find that a clear common methodological and conceptual ground for the evaluation of these dimensions is still to be consolidated. Different evaluation metrics have been reported in the literature but the precise relation, distinction or equivalence between them has not been explicitly studied. Furthermore, the metrics reported so far miss important properties such as taking into consideration the ranking of recommended items, or whether items are relevant or not, when assessing the novelty and diversity of recommendations.We present a formal framework for the definition of novelty and diversity metrics that unifies and generalizes several state of the art metrics. We identify three essential ground concepts at the roots of novelty and diversity: choice, discovery and relevance, upon which the framework is built. Item rank and relevance are introduced through a probabilistic recommendation browsing model, building upon the same three basic concepts. Based on the combination of ground elements, and the assumptions of the browsing model, different metrics and variants unfold. We report experimental observations which validate and illustrate the properties of the proposed metrics.
Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: Abstract--Semantic search has been one of the motivations of the Semantic Web since it was envisioned. We propose a model for the exploitation of ontology-based knowledge bases to improve search over large document repositories. In our view of Information Retrieval on the Semantic Web, a search engine returns documents rather than, or in addition to, exact values in response to user queries. For this purpose, our approach includes an ontology-based scheme for the semiautomatic annotation of documents, and a retrieval system. The retrieval model is based on an adaptation of the classic vector-space model, including an annotation weighting algorithm, and a ranking algorithm. Semantic search is combined with conventional keyword-based retrieval to achieve tolerance to knowledge base incompleteness. Experiments are shown where our approach is tested on corpora of significant scale, showing clear improvements with respect to keyword-based search.
There is considerable methodological divergence in the way precision-oriented metrics are being applied in the Recommender Systems field, and as a consequence, the results reported in different studies are difficult to put in context and compare. We aim to identify the involved methodological design alternatives, and their effect on the resulting measurements, with a view to assessing their suitability, advantages, and potential shortcomings. We compare five experimental methodologies, broadly covering the variants reported in the literature. In our experiments with three state-of-the-art recommenders, four of the evaluation methodologies are consistent with each other and differ from error metrics, in terms of the comparative recommenders' performance measurements. The other procedure aligns with RMSE, but shows a heavy bias towards known relevant items, considerably overestimating performance.
There is an increasing consensus in the Recommender Systems community that the dominant error-based evaluation metrics are insufficient, and mostly inadequate, to properly assess the practical effectiveness of recommendations. Seeking to evaluate recommendation rankings—which largely determine the effective accuracy in matching user needs—rather than predicted rating values, Information Retrieval metrics have started to be applied for the evaluation of recommender systems. In this paper we analyse the main issues and potential divergences in the application of Information Retrieval methodologies to recommender system evaluation, and provide a systematic characterisation of experimental design alternatives for this adaptation. We lay out an experimental configuration framework upon which we identify and analyse specific statistical biases arising in the adaptation of Information Retrieval metrics to recommendation tasks, namely sparsity and popularity biases. These biases considerably distort the empirical measurements, hindering the interpretation and comparison of results across experiments. We develop a formal characterisation and analysis of the biases upon which we analyse their causes and main factors, as well as their impact on evaluation metrics under different experimental configurations, illustrating the theoretical findings with empirical evidence. We propose two experimental design approaches that effectively neutralise such biases to a large extent. We report experiments validating our proposed experimental variants, and comparing them to alternative approaches and metrics that have been defined in the literature with similar or related purposes.This work was partially supported by the national Spanish Government (grants nr. TIN2013-47090-C3-2 and TIN2016-80630-P). We wish to express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful and generous feedback guided us in producing an enhanced version of the paper beyond the amendmentof flaws and shortcomings
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.