Our Model Achieves Excellent Performance on MovieLens: What Does it Mean?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A typical benchmark dataset for recommender system (RecSys) evaluation consists of user-item interactions generated on a platform within a time period. The interaction generation mechanism partially explains why a user interacts with (e.g., like, purchase, rate) an item, and the context of when a particular interaction happened. In this study, we conduct a meticulous analysis of the MovieLens dataset and explain the potential impact of using the dataset for evaluating recommendation algorithms. We make a few main findings from our analysis. First, there are significant differences in user interactions at the different stages when a user interacts with the MovieLens platform. The early interactions largely define the user portrait which affects the subsequent interactions. Second, user interactions are highly affected by the candidate movies that are recommended by the platform's internal recommendation algorithm(s). Third, changing the order of user interactions makes it more difficult for sequential algorithms to capture the progressive interaction process. We further discuss the discrepancy between the interaction generation mechanism that is employed by the MovieLens system and that of typical real-world recommendation scenarios. In summary, the MovieLens platform demonstrates an efficient and effective way of collecting user preferences to address cold-starts. However, models that achieve excellent recommendation accuracy on the MovieLens dataset may not demonstrate superior performance in practice, for at least two kinds of differences: (i) the differences in the contexts of user-item interaction generation, and (ii) the differences in user knowledge about the item collections. While results on MovieLens can be useful as a reference, they should not be solely relied upon as the primary justification for the effectiveness of a recommendation system model.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2023.
Builds on
18 of 50 references.
References · 18
- 2018Self-Attentive Sequential Recommendationcited by 1,169
- 2017Neural Collaborative Filteringcited by 1,108
- 2015Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 685
- 2018Personalized Top-N Sequential Recommendation via Convolutional Sequence Embeddingcited by 473
- 2018Variational Autoencoders for Collaborative Filteringcited by 308
- 2016Recommendations as Treatments: Debiasing Learning and Evaluationcited by 246
- 2020Bias and Debias in Recommender System: A Survey and Future Directionscited by 239
- 2019Are We Really Making Much Progress? A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Approachescited by 181
- 2020RecBole: Towards a Unified, Comprehensive and Efficient Framework for Recommendation Algorithmscited by 137
- 2020Exploring Data Splitting Strategies for the Evaluation of Recommendation Modelscited by 48
- 2020A Critical Study on Data Leakage in Recommender System Offline Evaluationcited by 38
- 2020The Connection Between Popularity Bias, Calibration, and Fairness in Recommendationcited by 35
6 more
- 2021Elliot: a Comprehensive and Rigorous Framework for Reproducible Recommender Systems Evaluationcited by 28
- 2022DaisyRec 2.0: Benchmarking Recommendation for Rigorous Evaluationcited by 19
- 2022Take a Fresh Look at Recommender Systems from an Evaluation Standpointcited by 16
- 2020Microsoft Recommenders: Tools to Accelerate Developing Recommender Systemscited by 10
- 2022Dataset vs Reality: Understanding Model Performance from the Perspective of Information Needcited by 4
- 2023When Newer is Not Better: Does Deep Learning Really Benefit Recommendation From Implicit Feedback?cited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
3 papers.