Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On the Difficulty of Evaluating Baselines: A Study on Recommender Systems

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 1905.01395 v1 pith:PKXPBASJ submitted 2019-05-04 cs.IR cs.LG

On the Difficulty of Evaluating Baselines: A Study on Recommender Systems

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

Numerical evaluations with comparisons to baselines play a central role when judging research in recommender systems. In this paper, we show that running baselines properly is difficult. We demonstrate this issue on two extensively studied datasets. First, we show that results for baselines that have been used in numerous publications over the past five years for the Movielens 10M benchmark are suboptimal. With a careful setup of a vanilla matrix factorization baseline, we are not only able to improve upon the reported results for this baseline but even outperform the reported results of any newly proposed method. Secondly, we recap the tremendous effort that was required by the community to obtain high quality results for simple methods on the Netflix Prize. Our results indicate that empirical findings in research papers are questionable unless they were obtained on standardized benchmarks where baselines have been tuned extensively by the research community.

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. How Reliable Are Semantic-ID Tokenizer Comparisons in Generative Recommendation?

    cs.IR 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    Semantic-ID tokenizers produce collisions affecting up to 30.5% of items across four datasets, inflating Hit@10 by up to 103.36% and making prior tokenizer comparisons unreliable.