Is rank aggregation effective in recommender systems? An experimental analysis

Abstract

Recommender Systems are tools designed to help users find relevant information from the myriad of content available online. They work by actively suggesting items that are relevant to users according to their historical preferences or observed actions. Among recommender systems, top-N recommenders work by suggesting a ranking of N items that can be of interest to a user. Although a significant number of top-N recommenders have been proposed in the literature, they often disagree in their returned rankings, offering an opportunity for improving the final recommendation ranking by aggregating the outputs of different algorithms.

Rank aggregation was successfully used in a significant number of areas, but only a few rank aggregation methods have been proposed in the recommender systems literature. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies regarding rankings’ characteristics and their possible impacts on the improvements achieved through rank aggregation. This work presents an extensive two-phase experimental analysis of rank aggregation in recommender systems. In the first phase, we investigate the characteristics of rankings recommended by 15 different top-N recommender algorithms regarding agreement and diversity. In the second phase, we look at the results of 19 rank aggregation methods and identify different scenarios where they perform best or worst according to the input rankings’ characteristics.

Our results show that supervised rank aggregation methods provide improvements in the results of the recommended rankings in six out of seven datasets. These methods provide robustness even in the presence of a big set of weak recommendation rankings. However, in cases where there was a set of non-diverse high-quality input rankings, supervised and unsupervised algorithms produced similar results. In these cases, we can avoid the cost of the former in favor of the latter.