提出多维评估框架,揭示大模型推荐的隐藏缺陷与优势
Beyond Utility: Evaluating LLM as Recommender
- 设计四个新评估维度,覆盖历史敏感度、位置偏见等非精度问题
- 大模型在重排序任务中超越传统模型,但存在严重候选项位置偏见
- 适合关注推荐系统公平性与生成质量的研究者参考
随着大语言模型(LLMs)的快速发展,近期研究已将其用于提供个性化信息服务。尽管已有工作致力于提升基于LLM的推荐模型准确性,但对超越实用性的维度关注不足。此外,基于LLM的推荐系统具有独特的评估需求,却长期被忽视。为此,本文探索了四个新评估维度:1)历史长度敏感性,2)候选项位置偏见,3)生成相关性能,4)幻觉现象。这四个维度均可能影响实际表现,但在传统系统中通常无需考虑。基于该多维评估框架,结合传统指标,我们评估了七种基于LLM的推荐模型(采用三种提示策略),在四个数据集上对比六种传统模型在排序与重排序任务中的表现。结果发现,LLM在具备先验知识且输入历史较短的排序任务中表现优异,在重排序任务中整体优于传统模型;然而,其存在显著的候选项位置偏见,部分模型更频繁地生成不存在的物品。本文旨在为未来基于LLM的推荐研究提供评估基准与洞察。代码与数据已公开于 https://github.com/JiangDeccc/EvaLLMasRecommender。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), recent studies employed LLMs as recommenders to provide personalized information services for distinct users. Despite efforts to improve the accuracy of LLM-based recommendation models, relatively little attention is paid to beyond-utility dimensions. Moreover, there are unique evaluation aspects of LLM-based recommendation models, which have been largely ignored. To bridge this gap, we explore four new evaluation dimensions and propose a multidimensional evaluation framework. The new evaluation dimensions include: 1) history length sensitivity, 2) candidate position bias, 3) generation-involved performance, and 4) hallucinations. All four dimensions have the potential to impact performance, but are largely unnecessary for consideration in traditional systems. Using this multidimensional evaluation framework, along with traditional aspects, we evaluate the performance of seven LLM-based recommenders, with three prompting strategies, comparing them with six traditional models on both ranking and re-ranking tasks on four datasets. We find that LLMs excel at handling tasks with prior knowledge and shorter input histories in the ranking setting, and perform better in the re-ranking setting, beating traditional models across multiple dimensions. However, LLMs exhibit substantial candidate position bias issues, and some models hallucinate non-existent items much more often than others. We intend our evaluation framework and observations to benefit future research on the use of LLMs as recommenders. The code and data are available at https://github.com/JiangDeccc/EvaLLMasRecommender.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。