Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Candidate Set Sampling for Evaluating Top-N Recommendation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.11723 v1 pith:CN4JEPKV submitted 2023-09-21 cs.IR

Candidate Set Sampling for Evaluating Top-N Recommendation

classification cs.IR
keywords candidateitemsevaluationmetricrecommendationselectionsetsstrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The strategy for selecting candidate sets -- the set of items that the recommendation system is expected to rank for each user -- is an important decision in carrying out an offline top-$N$ recommender system evaluation. The set of candidates is composed of the union of the user's test items and an arbitrary number of non-relevant items that we refer to as decoys. Previous studies have aimed to understand the effect of different candidate set sizes and selection strategies on evaluation. In this paper, we extend this knowledge by studying the specific interaction of candidate set selection strategies with popularity bias, and use simulation to assess whether sampled candidate sets result in metric estimates that are less biased with respect to the true metric values under complete data that is typically unavailable in ordinary experiments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. On the Convergent Validity of Offline Evaluation Designs for Recommender Systems

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Sparse offline recommender rankings correlate only weakly—and sometimes negatively—with dense ground-truth rankings, and no evaluation design is uniformly best.