The Potential of AutoML for Recommender Systems

Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) has greatly advanced applications of Machine Learning (ML) including model compression, machine translation, and computer vision. Recommender Systems (RecSys) can be seen as an application of ML. Yet, AutoML has found little attention in the RecSys community; nor has RecSys found notable attention in the AutoML community. Only few and relatively simple Automated Recommender Systems (AutoRecSys) libraries exist that adopt AutoML techniques. However, these libraries are based on student projects and do not offer the features and thorough development of AutoML libraries. We set out to determine how AutoML libraries perform in the scenario of an inexperienced user who wants to implement a recommender system. We compared the predictive performance of 60 AutoML, AutoRecSys, ML, and RecSys algorithms from 15 libraries, including a mean predictor baseline, on 14 explicit feedback RecSys datasets. To simulate the perspective of an inexperienced user, the algorithms were evaluated with default hyperparameters. We found that AutoML and AutoRecSys libraries performed best. AutoML libraries performed best for six of the 14 datasets (43%), but it was not always the same AutoML library performing best. The single-best library was the AutoRecSys library Auto-Surprise, which performed best on five datasets (36%). On three datasets (21%), AutoML libraries performed poorly, and RecSys libraries with default parameters performed best. Although, while obtaining 50% of all placements in the top five per dataset, RecSys algorithms fall behind AutoML on average. ML algorithms generally performed the worst.

Revealing the Hidden Impact of Top-N Metrics on Optimization in Recommender Systems

The hyperparameters of recommender systems for top-n predictions are typically optimized to enhance the predictive performance of algorithms. Thereby, the optimization algorithm, e.g., grid search or random search, searches for the best hyperparameter configuration according to an optimization-target metric, like nDCG or Precision. In contrast, the optimized algorithm, internally optimizes a different loss function during training, like squared error or cross-entropy. To tackle this discrepancy, recent work focused on generating loss functions better suited for recommender systems. Yet, when evaluating an algorithm using a top-n metric during optimization, another discrepancy between the optimization-target metric and the training loss has so far been ignored. During optimization, the top-n items are selected for computing a top-n metric; ignoring that the top-n items are selected from the recommendations of a model trained with an entirely different loss function. Item recommendations suitable for optimization-target metrics could be outside the top-n recommended items; hiddenly impacting the optimization performance. Therefore, we were motivated to analyze whether the top-n items are optimal for optimization-target top-n metrics. In pursuit of an answer, we exhaustively evaluate the predictive performance of 250 selection strategies besides selecting the top-n. We extensively evaluate each selection strategy over twelve implicit feedback and eight explicit feedback data sets with eleven recommender systems algorithms. Our results show that there exist selection strategies other than top-n that increase predictive performance for various algorithms and recommendation domains. However, the performance of the top ~43% of selection strategies is not significantly different. We discuss the impact of our findings on optimization and re-ranking in recommender systems and feasible solutions.