skip to main content
research-article

Understanding or Manipulation: Rethinking Online Performance Gains of Modern Recommender Systems

Published:09 February 2024Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Recommender systems are expected to be assistants that help human users find relevant information automatically without explicit queries. As recommender systems evolve, increasingly sophisticated learning techniques are applied and have achieved better performance in terms of user engagement metrics such as clicks and browsing time. The increase in the measured performance, however, can have two possible attributions: a better understanding of user preferences, and a more proactive ability to utilize human bounded rationality to seduce user over-consumption. A natural following question is whether current recommendation algorithms are manipulating user preferences. If so, can we measure the manipulation level? In this article, we present a general framework for benchmarking the degree of manipulations of recommendation algorithms, in both slate recommendation and sequential recommendation scenarios. The framework consists of four stages, initial preference calculation, training data collection, algorithm training and interaction, and metrics calculation that involves two proposed metrics, Manipulation Score and Preference Shift. We benchmark some representative recommendation algorithms in both synthetic and real-world datasets under the proposed framework. We have observed that a high online click-through rate does not necessarily mean a better understanding of user initial preference, but ends in prompting users to choose more documents they initially did not favor. Moreover, we find that the training data have notable impacts on the manipulation degrees, and algorithms with more powerful modeling abilities are more sensitive to such impacts. The experiments also verified the usefulness of the proposed metrics for measuring the degree of manipulations. We advocate that future recommendation algorithm studies should be treated as an optimization problem with constrained user preference manipulations.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Adomavicius Gediminas, Bockstedt Jesse C., Curley Shawn P., and Zhang Jingjing. 2018. Effects of online recommendations on consumers’ willingness to pay. Information Systems Research 29, 1 (2018), 84102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Ai Qingyao, Bi Keping, Guo Jiafeng, and Croft W Bruce. 2018. Learning a deep listwise context model for ranking refinement. In Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 135144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Bergman Oscar, Ellingsen Tore, Johannesson Magnus, and Svensson Cicek. 2010. Anchoring and cognitive ability. Economics Letters 107, 1 (2010), 6668.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Lucas Bernardi, Sakshi Batra, and Cintia Alicia Bruscantini. 2021. Simulations in recommender systems: An industry perspective. CoRR abs/2109.06723 (2021). arXiv:2109.06723 https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.06723Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Beutel Alex, Chen Jilin, Doshi Tulsee, Qian Hai, Wei Li, Wu Yi, Heldt Lukasz, Zhao Zhe, Hong Lichan, Chi Ed H., et al. 2019. Fairness in recommendation ranking through pairwise comparisons. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 22122220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Beutel Alex, Covington Paul, Jain Sagar, Xu Can, Li Jia, Gatto Vince, and Chi Ed H.. 2018. Latent cross: Making use of context in recurrent recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 4654.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Borisov Alexey, Markov Ilya, Rijke Maarten De, and Serdyukov Pavel. 2016. A neural click model for web search. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web. 531541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Borisov Alexey, Wardenaar Martijn, Markov Ilya, and Rijke Maarten de. 2018. A click sequence model for web search. In Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 4554.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Burges Chris, Shaked Tal, Renshaw Erin, Lazier Ari, Deeds Matt, Hamilton Nicole, and Hullender Greg. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning. 8996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Burges Christopher J. C.. 2010. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. Learning 11, 23-581 (2010), 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Camerer Colin. 1999. Behavioral economics: Reunifying psychology and economics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, 19 (1999), 1057510577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Micah D. Carroll, Anca Dragan, Stuart Russell, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. 2022. Estimating and penalizing induced preference shifts in recommender systems. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2686–2708.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Chaney Allison J. B., Stewart Brandon M., and Engelhardt Barbara E.. 2018. How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 224232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Charness Gary and Dave Chetan. 2017. Confirmation bias with motivated beliefs. Games and Economic Behavior 104 (2017), 123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899825617300416Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Chen Jia, Mao Jiaxin, Liu Yiqun, Zhang Min, and Ma Shaoping. 2019. TianGong-ST: A new dataset with large-scale refined real-world web search sessions. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 24852488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Chen Jia, Mao Jiaxin, Liu Yiqun, Zhang Min, and Ma Shaoping. 2020. A context-aware click model for web search. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 8896.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Chen Qiwei, Zhao Huan, Li Wei, Huang Pipei, and Ou Wenwu. 2019. Behavior sequence transformer for e-commerce recommendation in alibaba. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Deep Learning Practice for High-Dimensional Sparse Data. 14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Chen Ye and Canny John F.. 2011. Recommending ephemeral items at web scale. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 10131022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Chen Yanhong, Lu Yaobin, Wang Bin, and Pan Zhao. 2019. How do product recommendations affect impulse buying? An empirical study on WeChat social commerce. Information and Management 56, 2 (2019), 236248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Heng-Tze Cheng, Levent Koc, Jeremiah Harmsen, Tal Shaked, Tushar Chandra, Hrishi Aradhye, Glen Anderson, Greg Corrado, Wei Chai, Mustafa Ispir, Rohan Anil, Zakaria Haque, Lichan Hong, Vihan Jain, Xiaobing Liu, and Hemal Shah. 2016. Wide & deep learning for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems. 7–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. In Proceedings of SSST@EMNLP 2014, Eighth Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 103–111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Chorus Caspar, Cranenburgh Sander van, and Dekker Thijs. 2014. Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence. Journal of Business Research 67, 11 (2014), 24282436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Craswell Nick, Zoeter Onno, Taylor Michael, and Ramsey Bill. 2008. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 8794.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Dai Xinyi, Lin Jianghao, Zhang Weinan, Li Shuai, Liu Weiwen, Tang Ruiming, He Xiuqiang, Hao Jianye, Wang Jun, and Yu Yong. 2021. An adversarial imitation click model for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 18091820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Das Abhinandan S., Datar Mayur, Garg Ashutosh, and Rajaram Shyam. 2007. Google news personalization: Scalable online collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web. 271280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Ekstrand Michael D., Tian Mucun, Azpiazu Ion Madrazo, Ekstrand Jennifer D., Anuyah Oghenemaro, McNeill David, and Pera Maria Soledad. 2018. All the cool kids, how do they fit in?: Popularity and demographic biases in recommender evaluation and effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 172186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Fenglei Fan, Jinjun Xiong, and Ge Wang. 2020. On Interpretability of artificial neural networks. CoRR abs/2001.02522 (2020). arXiv:2001.02522 http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02522Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Fujimoto Scott, Meger David, and Precup Doina. 2019. Off-policy deep reinforcement learning without exploration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 20522062.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Furnham Adrian and Boo Hua Chu. 2011. A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-economics 40, 1 (2011), 3542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Diksha Garg, Priyanka Gupta, Pankaj Malhotra, Lovekesh Vig, and Gautam Shroff. 2020. Batch-constrained distributional reinforcement learning for session-based recommendation. CoRR abs/2012.08984 (2020). arXiv:2012.08984 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08984Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Nada Ghanem, Stephan Leitner, and Dietmar Jannach. 2022. Balancing consumer and business value of recommender systems: A simulation-based analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 55 (2022), 101195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Guevara C. Angelo and Fukushi Mitsuyoshi. 2016. Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 93 (2016), 318337. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191261516301345Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Guo Fan, Liu Chao, Kannan Anitha, Minka Tom, Taylor Michael, Wang Yi-Min, and Faloutsos Christos. 2009. Click chain model in web search. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web. 1120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, Yunming Ye, Zhenguo Li, and Xiuqiang He. 2017. DeepFM: A factorization-machine based neural network for CTR prediction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1725–1731.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] He Ruining, Fang Chen, Wang Zhaowen, and McAuley Julian. 2016. Vista: A visually, socially, and temporally-aware model for artistic recommendation. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 309316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] He Ruining and McAuley Julian. 2016. Fusing similarity models with markov chains for sparse sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, 191200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Xiangnan He, Xiaoyu Du, Xiang Wang, Feng Tian, Jinhui Tang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2018. Outer product-based neural collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2227–2233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] He Xiangnan, Liao Lizi, Zhang Hanwang, Nie Liqiang, Hu Xia, and Chua Tat-Seng. 2017. Neural collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. 173182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Hidasi Balázs and Karatzoglou Alexandros. 2018. Recurrent neural networks with top-k gains for session-based recommendations. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 843852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk. 2016. Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. In 4th International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Huber Joel, Payne John W., and Puto Christopher. 1982. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research 9, 1 (1982), 9098.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Eugene Ie, Chih-Wei Hsu, Martin Mladenov, Vihan Jain, Sanmit Narvekar, Jing Wang, Rui Wu, and Craig Boutilier. 2019. RecSim: A configurable simulation platform for recommender systems. CoRR abs/1909.04847 (2019). arXiv:1909.04847 http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04847Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Eugene Ie, Vihan Jain, Jing Wang, Sanmit Narvekar, Ritesh Agarwal, Rui Wu, Heng-Tze Cheng, Tushar Chandra, and Craig Boutilier. 2019. SlateQ: A tractable decomposition for reinforcement learning with recommendation sets. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2592–2599.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Jiang Ray, Chiappa Silvia, Lattimore Tor, György András, and Kohli Pushmeet. 2019. Degenerate feedback loops in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 383390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] Jing How and Smola Alexander J.. 2017. Neural survival recommender. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 515524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Michael I. Jordan. 2003. An introduction to probabilistic graphical models. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] Josiam Bharath M. and Hobson J. S. Perry. 1995. Consumer choice in context: The decoy effect in travel and tourism. Journal of Travel Research 34, 1 (1995), 4550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Kang Wang-Cheng and McAuley Julian. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, 197206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Koren Yehuda. 2008. Factorization meets the neighborhood: A multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 426434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. [50] Krumm John, Davies Nigel, and Narayanaswami Chandra. 2008. User-generated content. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7, 4 (2008), 1011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Lemon Oliver, Georgila Kallirroi, and Henderson James. 2006. Evaluating effectiveness and portability of reinforcement learned dialogue strategies with real users: The TALK TownInfo evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop. IEEE, 178181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Levin Esther, Pieraccini Roberto, and Eckert Wieland. 2000. A stochastic model of human-machine interaction for learning dialog strategies. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 8, 1 (2000), 1123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Elisabeth Lex, Mario Wagner, and Dominik Kowald. 2018. Mitigating confirmation bias on twitter by recommending opposing views. CoRR abs/1809.03901 (2018). arXiv:1809.03901 http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03901Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. [54] Li Lei, Zheng Li, Yang Fan, and Li Tao. 2014. Modeling and broadening temporal user interest in personalized news recommendation. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 7 (2014), 31683177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Liu Shang, Chen Zhenzhong, Liu Hongyi, and Hu Xinghai. 2019. User-video co-attention network for personalized micro-video recommendation. In Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference. 30203026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. [56] Mansoury Masoud, Abdollahpouri Himan, Pechenizkiy Mykola, Mobasher Bamshad, and Burke Robin. 2020. Feedback loop and bias amplification in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 21452148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. [57] Milano Silvia, Taddeo Mariarosaria, and Floridi Luciano. 2020. Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. Ai and Society 35, 4 (2020), 957967.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. [58] Min Kyeong Sam. 2003. Consumer Response to Product Unavailability. The Ohio State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. [59] Mladenov Martin, Hsu Chih-wei, Jain Vihan, Ie Eugene, Colby Christopher, Mayoraz Nicolas, Pham Hubert, Tran Dustin, Vendrov Ivan, and Boutilier Craig. 2020. Demonstrating principled uncertainty modeling for recommender ecosystems with RecSim NG. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 591593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. [60] Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin A. Riedmiller. 2013. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. CoRR abs/1312.5602 (2013). arXiv:1312.5602 http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5602Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Nguyen Tien T., Hui Pik-Mai, Harper F. Maxwell, Terveen Loren, and Konstan Joseph A.. 2014. Exploring the filter bubble: The effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web. 677686.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. [62] Nickerson Raymond S.. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2, 2 (1998), 175220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. [63] Xiao Pan, Lei Wu, Fenjie Long, and Ma Ang. 2022. Exploiting user behavior learning for personalized trajectory recommendations. Frontiers of Computer Science 16, 3 (2022), 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [64] Pang Liang, Xu Jun, Ai Qingyao, Lan Yanyan, Cheng Xueqi, and Wen Jirong. 2020. Setrank: Learning a permutation-invariant ranking model for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 499508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. [65] Paraschakis Dimitris. 2017. Towards an ethical recommendation framework. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. IEEE, 211220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. [66] Changhua Pei, Yi Zhang, Yongfeng Zhang, Fei Sun, Xiao Lin, Hanxiao Sun, Jian Wu, Peng Jiang, Junfeng Ge, Wenwu Ou, and Dan Pei. 2019. Personalized re-ranking for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 3–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. [67] Pietquin Olivier and Dutoit Thierry. 2006. A probabilistic framework for dialog simulation and optimal strategy learning. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 14, 2 (2006), 589599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] Qin Jiarui, Zhang Weinan, Wu Xin, Jin Jiarui, Fang Yuchen, and Yu Yong. 2020. User behavior retrieval for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 23472356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. [69] Kan Ren, Jiarui Qin, Yuchen Fang, Weinan Zhang, Lei Zheng, Weijie Bian, Guorui Zhou, Jian Xu, Yong Yu, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2019. Lifelong sequential modeling with personalized memorization for user response prediction. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 565–574.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. [70] Rendle Steffen, Freudenthaler Christoph, and Schmidt-Thieme Lars. 2010. Factorizing personalized markov chains for next-basket recommendation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. 811820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] Ribeiro Manoel Horta, Ottoni Raphael, West Robert, Almeida Virgílio A. F., and Jr Wagner Meira. 2020. Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 131141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. [72] David Rohde, Stephen Bonner, Travis Dunlop, Flavian Vasile, and Alexandros Karatzoglou. 2018. RecoGym: A reinforcement learning environment for the problem of product recommendation in online advertising. CoRR abs/1808.00720 (2018). arXiv:1808.00720 http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00720Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. [73] Sarwar Badrul, Karypis George, Konstan Joseph, and Riedl John. 2001. Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web. 285295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. [74] Schatzmann Jost, Weilhammer Karl, Stuttle Matt, and Young Steve. 2006. A survey of statistical user simulation techniques for reinforcement-learning of dialogue management strategies. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 2 (2006), 97126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. [75] Paul Schoemaker. 1982. The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 20, 2 (1982), 529–563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. [76] John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. CoRR abs/1707.06347 (2017). arXiv:1707.06347 http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. [77] Selten Reinhard. 1990. Bounded rationality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 146, 4 (1990), 649658.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. [78] Shang Wenjie, Yu Yang, Li Qingyang, Qin Zhiwei, Meng Yiping, and Ye Jieping. 2019. Environment reconstruction with hidden confounders for reinforcement learning based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 566576.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. [79] Shi Bichen, Ozsoy Makbule Gulcin, Hurley Neil, Smyth Barry, Tragos Elias Z., Geraci James, and Lawlor Aonghus. 2019. Pyrecgym: A reinforcement learning gym for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 491495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. [80] Shi Jing-Cheng, Yu Yang, Da Qing, Chen Shi-Yong, and Zeng An-Xiang. 2019. Virtual-taobao: Virtualizing real-world online retail environment for reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 49024909.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. [81] Slaughter Jerel E., Sinar Evan F., and Highhouse Scott. 1999. Decoy effects and attribute-level inferences. Journal of Applied Psychology 84, 5 (1999), 823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. [82] Srikant Ramakrishnan, Basu Sugato, Wang Ni, and Pregibon Daryl. 2010. User browsing models: Relevance versus examination. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 223232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. [83] Sun Fei, Liu Jun, Wu Jian, Pei Changhua, Lin Xiao, Ou Wenwu, and Jiang Peng. 2019. BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 14411450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. [84] Tang Jiaxi and Wang Ke. 2018. Personalized top-n sequential recommendation via convolutional sequence embedding. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 565573.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. [85] Teppan Erich, Felfernig Alexander, and Isak Klaus. 2011. Decoy effects in financial service e-sales systems. In Proceedings of the Workshop Decisions@ RecSys, in Conjunction with the Fourth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Citeseer, 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. [86] Tian Mucun and Ekstrand Michael D.. 2020. Estimating error and bias in offline evaluation results. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 392396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. [87] Wang Hongwei, Zhang Fuzheng, Xie Xing, and Guo Minyi. 2018. DKN: Deep knowledge-aware network for news recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. 18351844.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. [88] Kai Wang, Zhene Zou, Minghao Zhao, Qilin Deng, Yue Shang, Yile Liang, Runze Wu, Xudong Shen, Tangjie Lyu, and Changjie Fan. 2023. RL4RS: A real-world dataset for reinforcement learning based recommender system. In Proceedings of the 46th InternationalACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2935–2944.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. [89] Wang Ningxia and Chen Li. 2021. User bias in beyond-accuracy measurement of recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 133142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. [90] Wang Xuanhui, Li Cheng, Golbandi Nadav, Bendersky Michael, and Najork Marc. 2018. The lambdaloss framework for ranking metric optimization. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 13131322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. [91] Yifan Wang, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang, Yiqun Liu, and Shaoping Ma. 2023. A Survey on the Fairness of Recommender Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 3 (2023), 1–43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. [92] Webber William, Moffat Alistair, and Zobel Justin. 2010. A similarity measure for indefinite rankings. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 28, 4 (2010), 138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. [93] Xia Fen, Liu Tie-Yan, Wang Jue, Zhang Wensheng, and Li Hang. 2008. Listwise approach to learning to rank: Theory and algorithm. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning. 11921199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. [94] Xiao Teng and Wang Donglin. 2021. A general offline reinforcement learning framework for interactive recommendation. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. [95] Sirui Yao, Yoni Halpern, Nithum Thain, Xuezhi Wang, Kang Lee, Flavien Prost, Ed H. Chi, Jilin Chen, and Alex Beutel. 2021. Measuring recommender system effects with simulated users. CoRR abs/2101.04526 (2021). arXiv:2101.04526 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04526Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. [96] Yuan Fajie, Guo Guibing, Jose Joemon M, Chen Long, Yu Haitao, and Zhang Weinan. 2016. Lambdafm: Learning optimal ranking with factorization machines using lambda surrogates. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 227236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. [97] Yu Zhang, Peter Tiňo, Aleš Leonardis, and Ke Tang. 2021. A survey on neural network interpretability. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 5, 5 (2021), 726–742.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. [98] Zhao Zhe, Hong Lichan, Wei Li, Chen Jilin, Nath Aniruddh, Andrews Shawn, Kumthekar Aditee, Sathiamoorthy Maheswaran, Yi Xinyang, and Chi Ed. 2019. Recommending what video to watch next: A multitask ranking system. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 4351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. [99] Zhou Guorui, Mou Na, Fan Ying, Pi Qi, Bian Weijie, Zhou Chang, Zhu Xiaoqiang, and Gai Kun. 2019. Deep interest evolution network for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 59415948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. [100] Zhou Guorui, Zhu Xiaoqiang, Song Chenru, Fan Ying, Zhu Han, Ma Xiao, Yan Yanghui, Jin Junqi, Li Han, and Gai Kun. 2018. Deep interest network for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 10591068.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  101. [101] Zhu Ziwei, He Yun, Zhao Xing, Zhang Yin, Wang Jianling, and Caverlee James. 2021. Popularity-opportunity bias in collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 8593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. [102] Zhu Ziwei, Wang Jianling, and Caverlee James. 2020. Measuring and mitigating item under-recommendation bias in personalized ranking systems. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 449458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Understanding or Manipulation: Rethinking Online Performance Gains of Modern Recommender Systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Information Systems
      ACM Transactions on Information Systems  Volume 42, Issue 4
      July 2024
      751 pages
      ISSN:1046-8188
      EISSN:1558-2868
      DOI:10.1145/3613639
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 February 2024
      • Online AM: 15 December 2023
      • Accepted: 3 December 2023
      • Revised: 16 October 2023
      • Received: 5 November 2022
      Published in tois Volume 42, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)198
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)58

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text