Navigating the Evaluation Funnel to Optimize Iteration Speed for Recommender Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08671v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 17:15:45 GMT
• Title: Navigating the Evaluation Funnel to Optimize Iteration Speed for Recommender Systems
• Authors: Claire Schultzberg, Brammert Ottens,
• Abstract summary: We present a novel framework that simplifies the reasoning around the evaluation funnel for a recommendation system. We show that decomposing the definition of success into smaller necessary criteria for success enables early identification of non-successful ideas. We go through so-called offline and online evaluation methods such as counterfactual logging, validation, verification, A/B testing, and interleaving.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Over the last decades has emerged a rich literature on the evaluation of recommendation systems. However, less is written about how to efficiently combine different evaluation methods from this rich field into a single efficient evaluation funnel. In this paper we aim to build intuition for how to choose evaluation methods, by presenting a novel framework that simplifies the reasoning around the evaluation funnel for a recommendation system. Our contribution is twofold. First we present our framework for how to decompose the definition of success to construct efficient evaluation funnels, focusing on how to identify and discard non-successful iterations quickly. We show that decomposing the definition of success into smaller necessary criteria for success enables early identification of non-successful ideas. Second, we give an overview of the most common and useful evaluation methods, discuss their pros and cons, and how they fit into, and complement each other in, the evaluation process. We go through so-called offline and online evaluation methods such as counterfactual logging, validation, verification, A/B testing, and interleaving. The paper concludes with some general discussion and advice on how to design an efficient evaluation process for recommender systems.

Related papers

• Revisiting Reciprocal Recommender Systems: Metrics, Formulation, and Method [60.364834418531366]
  We propose five new evaluation metrics that comprehensively and accurately assess the performance of RRS. We formulate the RRS from a causal perspective, formulating recommendations as bilateral interventions. We introduce a reranking strategy to maximize matching outcomes, as measured by the proposed metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T07:21:02Z)
• CovScore: Evaluation of Multi-Document Abstractive Title Set Generation [16.516381474175986]
  CovScore is an automatic reference-less methodology for evaluating thematic title sets. We propose a novel methodology that decomposes quality into five main metrics along different aspects of evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T16:14:15Z)
• Are We Wasting Time? A Fast, Accurate Performance Evaluation Framework for Knowledge Graph Link Predictors [4.31947784387967]
  In Knowledge Graphs on a larger scale, the ranking process rapidly becomes heavy. Previous approaches used random sampling of entities to assess the quality of links predicted or suggested by a method. We show that this approach has serious limitations since the ranking metrics produced do not properly reflect true outcomes. We propose a framework that uses relational recommenders to guide the selection of candidates for evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T15:44:46Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey of Evaluation Techniques for Recommendation Systems [0.0]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive suite of metrics, each tailored to capture a distinct aspect of system performance. We identify the strengths and limitations of current evaluation practices and highlight the nuanced trade-offs that emerge when optimizing recommendation systems across different metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T11:57:01Z)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods [77.1487219861185]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We also propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T20:50:17Z)
• Counterfactually Evaluating Explanations in Recommender Systems [14.938252589829673]
  We propose an offline evaluation method that can be computed without human involvement. We show that, compared to conventional methods, our method can produce evaluation scores more correlated with the real human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T18:55:29Z)
• Measuring "Why" in Recommender Systems: a Comprehensive Survey on the Evaluation of Explainable Recommendation [87.82664566721917]
  This survey is based on more than 100 papers from top-tier conferences like IJCAI, AAAI, TheWebConf, Recsys, UMAP, and IUI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-14T02:58:55Z)
• FewNLU: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Methods for Few-Shot Natural Language Understanding [89.92513889132825]
  We introduce an evaluation framework that improves previous evaluation procedures in three key aspects, i.e., test performance, dev-test correlation, and stability. We open-source our toolkit, FewNLU, that implements our evaluation framework along with a number of state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T00:57:30Z)
• PONE: A Novel Automatic Evaluation Metric for Open-Domain Generative Dialogue Systems [48.99561874529323]
  There are three kinds of automatic methods to evaluate the open-domain generative dialogue systems. Due to the lack of systematic comparison, it is not clear which kind of metrics are more effective. We propose a novel and feasible learning-based metric that can significantly improve the correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T04:36:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.