Paper detail

Cross Pairwise Ranking for Unbiased Item Recommendation

Most recommender systems optimize the model on observed interaction data, which is affected by the previous exposure mechanism and exhibits many biases like popularity bias. The loss functions, such as the mostly used pointwise Binary Cross-Entropy and pairwise Bayesian Personalized Ranking, are not designed to consider the biases in observed data. As a result, the model optimized on the loss would inherit the data biases, or even worse, amplify the biases. For example, a few popular items take up more and more exposure opportunities, severely hurting the recommendation quality on niche items -- known as the notorious Mathew effect. In this work, we develop a new learning paradigm named Cross Pairwise Ranking (CPR) that achieves unbiased recommendation without knowing the exposure mechanism. Distinct from inverse propensity scoring (IPS), we change the loss term of a sample -- we innovatively sample multiple observed interactions once and form the loss as the combination of their predictions. We prove in theory that this way offsets the influence of user/item propensity on the learning, removing the influence of data biases caused by the exposure mechanism. Advantageous to IPS, our proposed CPR ensures unbiased learning for each training instance without the need of setting the propensity scores. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of CPR over state-of-the-art debiasing solutions in both model generalization and training efficiency. The codes are available at https://github.com/Qcactus/CPR.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.