TL;DR
This paper compares Neural Collaborative Filtering and Matrix Factorization across multiple evaluation dimensions, including accuracy, diversity, and bias, highlighting their strengths and limitations beyond traditional accuracy metrics.
Contribution
It extends prior comparisons by including diverse evaluation metrics and statistical tests, providing a comprehensive analysis of recent ANN-based and MF recommendation methods.
Findings
MF achieves better accuracy on the long tail.
NCF offers higher item coverage and diversity.
Both methods show small bias effects, with baselines being less biased.
Abstract
Collaborative filtering models based on matrix factorization and learned similarities using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have gained significant attention in recent years. This is, in part, because ANNs have demonstrated good results in a wide variety of recommendation tasks. The introduction of ANNs within the recommendation ecosystem has been recently questioned, raising several comparisons in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. One aspect most of these comparisons have in common is their focus on accuracy, neglecting other evaluation dimensions important for the recommendation, such as novelty, diversity, or accounting for biases. We replicate experiments from three papers that compare Neural Collaborative Filtering (NCF) and Matrix Factorization (MF), to extend the analysis to other evaluation dimensions. Our contribution shows that the experiments are entirely reproducible,…
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.
