Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1907.06902 v3 pith:GA54GPIV submitted 2019-07-16 cs.IR cs.LGcs.NE

classification cs.IRcs.LGcs.NE
keywords learningmachinerecommendationresultsalgorithmicanalysisbaselinesbecome
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Threshold Neuron: A Brain-inspired Artificial Neuron for Efficient On-device Inference

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper presents a multiplication-free threshold neuron that builds unified networks with large claimed hardware savings, but the fairest comparisons are still missing.

Pith tools