TL;DR
This paper critically reviews the effectiveness of user reviews in recommender systems, revealing inconsistencies in reported results and identifying conditions under which reviews are beneficial, to guide future research and evaluation practices.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive analysis of review-based recommendation methods, highlights discrepancies in experimental results, and proposes hypotheses on when reviews are most useful.
Findings
State-of-the-art methods often do not outperform baselines outside narrow settings
Discrepancies in reported results are partly due to inconsistent experimental setups
Reviews are less helpful as experimental conditions deviate from specific scenarios
Abstract
We investigate a growing body of work that seeks to improve recommender systems through the use of review text. Generally, these papers argue that since reviews 'explain' users' opinions, they ought to be useful to infer the underlying dimensions that predict ratings or purchases. Schemes to incorporate reviews range from simple regularizers to neural network approaches. Our initial findings reveal several discrepancies in reported results, partly due to (e.g.) copying results across papers despite changes in experimental settings or data pre-processing. First, we attempt a comprehensive analysis to resolve these ambiguities. Further investigation calls for discussion on a much larger problem about the "importance" of user reviews for recommendation. Through a wide range of experiments, we observe several cases where state-of-the-art methods fail to outperform existing baselines,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
