Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2307.15053v1

In recent research, a fundamental difference has been highlighted between online evaluation metrics and offline evaluation metrics. This discrepancy becomes especially pronounced when considering reinforcement learning methods and interpreting organic implicit feedback as a user preference signal. The use of open-source simulation environments has been proposed to overcome the need for an online ground truth result. However, the question remains whether conclusions drawn from simulation results accurately reflect those from real-world experiments. In this study by Olivier Jeunen, Ivan Potapov, and Aleksei Ustimenko, the focus is on bridging the gap between offline and online paradigms through a critical examination of the widely used (n)DCG metric. The aim is to develop offline evaluation methodologies that closely mirror the outcomes of online experiments. The research delves into formalizing the problem setting within a session-based feed recommendation framework where user trajectories on a platform are encoded with contextual features. Due to the vast item catalogue size in real-world systems, a two-stage ranking setup is commonly employed to efficiently score and rank items for personalized recommendations. The study presents an in-depth analysis of (n)DCG as an unbiased estimator of online reward and highlights deviations from its traditional usage in Information Retrieval. It is demonstrated that normalizing the metric can lead to inconsistencies in ranking competing methods by their relative performance. Through correlation analyses between offline and online experiments conducted on a large-scale recommendation platform, it is shown that unbiased DCG estimates strongly correlate with online rewards even when certain assumptions are violated. However, this correlation does not hold true for normalized DCG variants, suggesting limitations in practical utility. Overall, this work contributes valuable insights into refining offline evaluation metrics like (n)DCG to better approximate online experiment outcomes and enhance the efficacy of recommendation systems across different evaluation paradigms.

• - Fundamental difference between online and offline evaluation metrics highlighted
• - Proposal to use open-source simulation environments to overcome need for online ground truth result
• - Study by Olivier Jeunen, Ivan Potapov, and Aleksei Ustimenko focuses on bridging gap between offline and online paradigms through critical examination of (n)DCG metric
• - Research formalizes problem setting within session-based feed recommendation framework with contextual features encoding user trajectories
• - Two-stage ranking setup commonly employed due to vast item catalogue size in real-world systems for personalized recommendations
• - In-depth analysis of (n)DCG as an unbiased estimator of online reward, highlighting deviations from traditional usage in Information Retrieval
• - Normalizing the metric can lead to inconsistencies in ranking competing methods by their relative performance
• - Correlation analyses show unbiased DCG estimates strongly correlate with online rewards even when assumptions are violated, but not true for normalized DCG variants
• - Work contributes valuable insights into refining offline evaluation metrics like (n)DCG to better approximate online experiment outcomes

Summary1. Online and offline evaluation metrics are different ways to measure how well something works. 2. Using open-source simulation environments can help us test things without needing real results. 3. A study by Olivier Jeunen, Ivan Potapov, and Aleksei Ustimenko looks at a metric called (n)DCG to compare online and offline methods. 4. Researchers are trying to improve how we recommend things to users based on their past actions. 5. When recommending items to users, a two-stage ranking system is often used because there are so many options. Definitions- Evaluation metrics: Ways to measure or judge how well something is performing. - Simulation environments: Virtual spaces where we can test things out without using the real world. - (n)DCG metric: A specific way of measuring the quality of ranked lists of items. - Paradigms: Different ways of thinking or doing things. - Contextual features: Details or characteristics that provide extra information about something. - Catalogue size: The number of different items available for selection in a list or database. - Unbiased estimator: A method that gives an accurate estimate without favoring one option over another. - Correlation analyses: Studying how two things relate or connect with each other in data analysis.

Introduction: In recent years, the field of recommendation systems has seen a surge in research and development due to the increasing demand for personalized content. With the rise of online platforms and services, there is a growing need for efficient algorithms that can accurately recommend relevant items to users. However, evaluating the performance of these algorithms poses a significant challenge as it requires balancing between offline and online evaluation metrics. The discrepancy between offline and online evaluation metrics becomes particularly pronounced when considering reinforcement learning methods. These methods rely on interpreting organic implicit feedback from users as a preference signal. This raises questions about whether conclusions drawn from simulation results accurately reflect those from real-world experiments. To address this issue, Olivier Jeunen, Ivan Potapov, and Aleksei Ustimenko conducted a study focused on bridging the gap between offline and online paradigms through a critical examination of the widely used (n)DCG metric. Their aim was to develop offline evaluation methodologies that closely mirror the outcomes of online experiments. Methodology: The researchers formalized their problem setting within a session-based feed recommendation framework where user trajectories on a platform are encoded with contextual features. In real-world systems with vast item catalog sizes, a two-stage ranking setup is commonly employed to efficiently score and rank items for personalized recommendations. The study presents an in-depth analysis of (n)DCG as an unbiased estimator of online reward and highlights deviations from its traditional usage in Information Retrieval. The researchers also explored different normalization techniques applied to (n)DCG variants and their impact on ranking competing methods by their relative performance. Results: Through correlation analyses between offline and online experiments conducted on a large-scale recommendation platform, it was shown that unbiased DCG estimates strongly correlate with online rewards even when certain assumptions are violated. This suggests that (n)DCG can be an effective metric for evaluating reinforcement learning methods in recommendation systems. However, when normalized DCG variants were used, the correlation between offline and online rewards was not as strong. This indicates limitations in the practical utility of these normalized metrics for evaluating recommendation systems. Implications: The findings of this study have important implications for the evaluation of recommendation systems. By highlighting the discrepancies between offline and online evaluation metrics, it emphasizes the need for more accurate and reliable methods to evaluate algorithm performance. The researchers also suggest that future studies should focus on developing new evaluation methodologies that better approximate online experiment outcomes. This could involve refining existing metrics like (n)DCG or exploring alternative metrics that can capture the complexities of real-world user behavior. Conclusion: In conclusion, Jeunen, Potapov, and Ustimenko's research sheds light on an important issue in recommendation system evaluation – bridging the gap between offline and online paradigms. Their study provides valuable insights into refining existing offline evaluation metrics to better approximate online experiment outcomes. By doing so, it has the potential to enhance the efficacy of recommendation systems across different evaluation paradigms.