Recommender systems are tools that support online users by pointing them to potential items of interest in situations of information overload. In recent years, the class of session-based recommendation algorithms received more attention in the research literature. These algorithms base their recommendations solely on the observed interactions with the user in an ongoing session and do not require the existence of long-term preference profiles. Most recently, a number of deep learning-based (“neural”) approaches to session-based recommendations have been proposed. However, previous research indicates that today’s complex neural recommendation methods are not always better than comparably simple algorithms in terms of prediction accuracy. With this work, our goal is to shed light on the state of the art in the area of session-based recommendation and on the progress that is made with neural approaches. For this purpose, we compare twelve algorithmic approaches, among them six recent neural methods, under identical conditions on various datasets. We find that the progress in terms of prediction accuracy that is achieved with neural methods is still limited. In most cases, our experiments show that simple heuristic methods based on nearest-neighbors schemes are preferable over conceptually and computationally more complex methods. Observations from a user study furthermore indicate that recommendations based on heuristic methods were also well accepted by the study participants. To support future progress and reproducibility in this area, we publicly share the SESSION-REC evaluation framework that was used in our research.

Empirical analysis of session-based recommendation algorithms

Noemi Mauro;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Recommender systems are tools that support online users by pointing them to potential items of interest in situations of information overload. In recent years, the class of session-based recommendation algorithms received more attention in the research literature. These algorithms base their recommendations solely on the observed interactions with the user in an ongoing session and do not require the existence of long-term preference profiles. Most recently, a number of deep learning-based (“neural”) approaches to session-based recommendations have been proposed. However, previous research indicates that today’s complex neural recommendation methods are not always better than comparably simple algorithms in terms of prediction accuracy. With this work, our goal is to shed light on the state of the art in the area of session-based recommendation and on the progress that is made with neural approaches. For this purpose, we compare twelve algorithmic approaches, among them six recent neural methods, under identical conditions on various datasets. We find that the progress in terms of prediction accuracy that is achieved with neural methods is still limited. In most cases, our experiments show that simple heuristic methods based on nearest-neighbors schemes are preferable over conceptually and computationally more complex methods. Observations from a user study furthermore indicate that recommendations based on heuristic methods were also well accepted by the study participants. To support future progress and reproducibility in this area, we publicly share the SESSION-REC evaluation framework that was used in our research.
2021
31
1
149
181
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11257-020-09277-1
Session-based recommendation, Performance evaluation, Reproducibility
Malte Ludewig, Noemi Mauro, Sara Latifi, Dietmar Jannach
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Ludewig2020_Article_EmpiricalAnalysisOfSession-bas.pdf

Accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo completo
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 832.08 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
832.08 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1759012
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 63
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact