Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2018
DOI: 10.1145/3240323.3240355
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unbiased offline recommender evaluation for missing-not-at-random implicit feedback

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
158
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(167 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
158
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Causal inference is also used to handle the missing-not-at-random (MNAR) nature [29,44] of user feedback. IPS estimators were used to adjust the item selection bias of explicit feedback [41] and implicit feedback [50]. Another approach to MNAR is exposure modeling [26], which decomposes missing feedback to either a user's unawareness of or dislike for an item.…”
Section: Proposed Sampling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Causal inference is also used to handle the missing-not-at-random (MNAR) nature [29,44] of user feedback. IPS estimators were used to adjust the item selection bias of explicit feedback [41] and implicit feedback [50]. Another approach to MNAR is exposure modeling [26], which decomposes missing feedback to either a user's unawareness of or dislike for an item.…”
Section: Proposed Sampling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this setting, we study how the user was exposed to the items before providing the ratings and then how this will affect the next predictions. This is equivalent to studying the Missing Not At Random (MNAR) problem [35]. In fact, by studying the distribution of the missing data, we can infer the effect of the bias on the predictions and/or the training.…”
Section: Exposure Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recommenders are often evaluated and compared offline using datasets collected from online platforms [18]. Evaluation can be done by using prediction accuracy or information retrieval metrics.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%