Recent popularity surrounds large AI language models due to their impressive natural language capabilities. They contribute significantly to language-related tasks, including prompt-based learning, making them valuable for various specific tasks. This approach unlocks their full potential, enhancing precision and generalization. Research communities are actively exploring their applications, with ChatGPT receiving recognition. Despite extensive research on large language models, their potential in recommendation scenarios still needs to be explored. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating ChatGPT's capabilities as a zero-shot recommender system. Our goals include evaluating its ability to use user preferences for recommendations, reordering existing recommendation lists, leveraging information from similar users, and handling cold-start situations. We assess ChatGPT's performance through comprehensive experiments using three datasets (MovieLens Small, Last.FM, and Facebook Book). We compare ChatGPT's performance against standard recommendation algorithms and other large language models, such as GPT-3.5 and PaLM-2. To measure recommendation effectiveness, we employ widely-used evaluation metrics like Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, Precision, F1, normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG), Item Coverage, Expected Popularity Complement (EPC), Average Coverage of Long Tail (ACLT), Average Recommendation Popularity (ARP), and Popularity-based Ranking-based Equal Opportunity (PopREO). Through thoroughly exploring ChatGPT's abilities in recommender systems, our study aims to contribute to the growing body of research on the versatility and potential applications of large language models. Our experiment code is available on the GitHub repository: https://github.com/sisinflab/Recommender-ChatGPT
The successful integration of graph neural networks into recommender systems (RSs) has led to a novel paradigm in collaborative filtering (CF), graph collaborative filtering (graph CF). By representing user-item data as an undirected, bipartite graph, graph CF utilizes short- and long-range connections to extract collaborative signals that yield more accurate user preferences than traditional CF methods. Although the recent literature highlights the efficacy of various algorithmic strategies in graph CF, the impact of datasets and their topological features on recommendation performance is yet to be studied. To fill this gap, we propose a topology-aware analysis of graph CF. In this study, we (i) take some widely-adopted recommendation datasets and use them to generate a large set of synthetic sub-datasets through two state-of-the-art graph sampling methods, (ii) measure eleven of their classical and topological characteristics, and (iii) estimate the accuracy calculated on the generated sub-datasets considering four popular and recent graph-based RSs (i.e., LightGCN, DGCF, UltraGCN, and SVD-GCN). Finally, the investigation presents an explanatory framework that reveals the linear relationships between characteristics and accuracy measures. The results, statistically validated under different graph sampling settings, confirm the existence of solid dependencies between topological characteristics and accuracy in the graph-based recommendation, offering a new perspective on how to interpret graph CF.
The success of graph neural network-based models (GNNs) has significantly advanced recommender systems by effectively modeling users and items as a bipartite, undirected graph. However, many original graph-based works often adopt results from baseline papers without verifying their validity for the specific configuration under analysis. Our work addresses this issue by focusing on the replicability of results. We present a code that successfully replicates results from six popular and recent graph recommendation models (NGCF, DGCF, LightGCN, SGL, UltraGCN, and GFCF) on three common benchmark datasets (Gowalla, Yelp 2018, and Amazon Book). Additionally, we compare these graph models with traditional collaborative filtering models that historically performed well in offline evaluations. Furthermore, we extend our study to two new datasets (Allrecipes and BookCrossing) that lack established setups in existing literature. As the performance on these datasets differs from the previous benchmarks, we analyze the impact of specific dataset characteristics on recommendation accuracy. By investigating the information flow from users' neighborhoods, we aim to identify which models are influenced by intrinsic features in the dataset structure. The code to reproduce our experiments is available at: https://github.com/sisinflab/Graph-RSs-Reproducibility.
Information Retrieval (IR) and Recommender Systems (RS) tasks are moving from computing a ranking of final results based on a single metric to multi-objective problems. Solving these problems leads to a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, known as Pareto frontier, in which no objective can be further improved without hurting the others. In principle, all the points on the Pareto frontier are potential candidates to represent the best model selected with respect to the combination of two, or more, metrics. To our knowledge, there are no well-recognized strategies to decide which point should be selected on the frontier. In this paper, we propose a novel, post-hoc, theoretically-justified technique, named "Population Distance from Utopia" (PDU), to identify and select the one-best Pareto-optimal solution from the frontier. In detail, PDU analyzes the distribution of the points by investigating how far each point is from its utopia point (the ideal performance for the objectives). The possibility of considering fine-grained utopia points allows PDU to select solutions tailored to individual user preferences, a novel feature we call "calibration". We compare PDU against existing state-of-the-art strategies through extensive experiments on tasks from both IR and RS. Experimental results show that PDU and combined with calibration notably impact the solution selection. Furthermore, the results show that the proposed framework selects a solution in a principled way, irrespective of its position on the frontier, thus overcoming the limits of other strategies.
Current AI regulations require discarding sensitive features (e.g., gender, race, religion) in the algorithm's decision-making process to prevent unfair outcomes. However, even without sensitive features in the training set, algorithms can persist in discrimination. Indeed, when sensitive features are omitted (fairness under unawareness), they could be inferred through non-linear relations with the so called proxy features. In this work, we propose a way to reveal the potential hidden bias of a machine learning model that can persist even when sensitive features are discarded. This study shows that it is possible to unveil whether the black-box predictor is still biased by exploiting counterfactual reasoning. In detail, when the predictor provides a negative classification outcome, our approach first builds counterfactual examples for a discriminated user category to obtain a positive outcome. Then, the same counterfactual samples feed an external classifier (that targets a sensitive feature) that reveals whether the modifications to the user characteristics needed for a positive outcome moved the individual to the non-discriminated group. When this occurs, it could be a warning sign for discriminatory behavior in the decision process. Furthermore, we leverage the deviation of counterfactuals from the original sample to determine which features are proxies of specific sensitive information. Our experiments show that, even if the model is trained without sensitive features, it often suffers discriminatory biases.
The increasing application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning models poses potential risks of unfair behavior and, in light of recent regulations, has attracted the attention of the research community. Several researchers focused on seeking new fairness definitions or developing approaches to identify biased predictions. However, none try to exploit the counterfactual space to this aim. In that direction, the methodology proposed in this work aims to unveil unfair model behaviors using counterfactual reasoning in the case of fairness under unawareness setting. A counterfactual version of equal opportunity named counterfactual fair opportunity is defined and two novel metrics that analyze the sensitive information of counterfactual samples are introduced. Experimental results on three different datasets show the efficacy of our methodologies and our metrics, disclosing the unfair behavior of classic machine learning and debiasing models.
Research on recommender systems algorithms, like other areas of applied machine learning, is largely dominated by efforts to improve the state-of-the-art, typically in terms of accuracy measures. Several recent research works however indicate that the reported improvements over the years sometimes "don't add up", and that methods that were published several years ago often outperform the latest models when evaluated independently. Different factors contribute to this phenomenon, including that some researchers probably often only fine-tune their own models but not the baselines. In this paper, we report the outcomes of an in-depth, systematic, and reproducible comparison of ten collaborative filtering algorithms - covering both traditional and neural models - on several common performance measures on three datasets which are frequently used for evaluation in the recent literature. Our results show that there is no consistent winner across datasets and metrics for the examined top-n recommendation task. Moreover, we find that for none of the accuracy measurements any of the considered neural models led to the best performance. Regarding the performance ranking of algorithms across the measurements, we found that linear models, nearest-neighbor methods, and traditional matrix factorization consistently perform well for the evaluated modest-sized, but commonly-used datasets. Our work shall therefore serve as a guideline for researchers regarding existing baselines to consider in future performance comparisons. Moreover, by providing a set of fine-tuned baseline models for different datasets, we hope that our work helps to establish a common understanding of the state-of-the-art for top-n recommendation tasks.
Explainable Recommendation has attracted a lot of attention due to a renewed interest in explainable artificial intelligence. In particular, post-hoc approaches have proved to be the most easily applicable ones to increasingly complex recommendation models, which are then treated as black-boxes. The most recent literature has shown that for post-hoc explanations based on local surrogate models, there are problems related to the robustness of the approach itself. This consideration becomes even more relevant in human-related tasks like recommendation. The explanation also has the arduous task of enhancing increasingly relevant aspects of user experience such as transparency or trustworthiness. This paper aims to show how the characteristics of a classical post-hoc model based on surrogates is strongly model-dependent and does not prove to be accountable for the explanations generated.
Deep Learning and factorization-based collaborative filtering recommendation models have undoubtedly dominated the scene of recommender systems in recent years. However, despite their outstanding performance, these methods require a training time proportional to the size of the embeddings and it further increases when also side information is considered for the computation of the recommendation list. In fact, in these cases we have that with a large number of high-quality features, the resulting models are more complex and difficult to train. This paper addresses this problem by presenting KGFlex: a sparse factorization approach that grants an even greater degree of expressiveness. To achieve this result, KGFlex analyzes the historical data to understand the dimensions the user decisions depend on (e.g., movie direction, musical genre, nationality of book writer). KGFlex represents each item feature as an embedding and it models user-item interactions as a factorized entropy-driven combination of the item attributes relevant to the user. KGFlex facilitates the training process by letting users update only those relevant features on which they base their decisions. In other words, the user-item prediction is mediated by the user's personal view that considers only relevant features. An extensive experimental evaluation shows the approach's effectiveness, considering the recommendation results' accuracy, diversity, and induced bias. The public implementation of KGFlex is available at https://split.to/kgflex.
Recommender systems (RSs) employ user-item feedback, e.g., ratings, to match customers to personalized lists of products. Approaches to top-k recommendation mainly rely on Learning-To-Rank algorithms and, among them, the most widely adopted is Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR), which bases on a pair-wise optimization approach. Recently, BPR has been found vulnerable against adversarial perturbations of its model parameters. Adversarial Personalized Ranking (APR) mitigates this issue by robustifying BPR via an adversarial training procedure. The empirical improvements of APR's accuracy performance on BPR have led to its wide use in several recommender models. However, a key overlooked aspect has been the beyond-accuracy performance of APR, i.e., novelty, coverage, and amplification of popularity bias, considering that recent results suggest that BPR, the building block of APR, is sensitive to the intensification of biases and reduction of recommendation novelty. In this work, we model the learning characteristics of the BPR and APR optimization frameworks to give mathematical evidence that, when the feedback data have a tailed distribution, APR amplifies the popularity bias more than BPR due to an unbalanced number of received positive updates from short-head items. Using matrix factorization (MF), we empirically validate the theoretical results by performing preliminary experiments on two public datasets to compare BPR-MF and APR-MF performance on accuracy and beyond-accuracy metrics. The experimental results consistently show the degradation of novelty and coverage measures and a worrying amplification of bias.