Papers › Are We Really Making Much Progress? A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural...

Are We Really Making Much Progress? A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Approaches

16 Jul 2019arXiv:1907.06902archive 2025-07-28

Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, Paolo Cremonesi, Dietmar Jannach

Deep learning techniques have become the method of choice for researchers working on algorithmic aspects of recommender systems. With the strongly increased interest in machine learning in general, it has, as a result, become difficult to keep track of what represents the state-of-the-art at the moment, e.g., for top-n recommendation tasks. At the same time, several recent publications point out problems in today's research practice in applied machine learning, e.g., in terms of the reproducibility of the results or the choice of the baselines when proposing new models. In this work, we report the results of a systematic analysis of algorithmic proposals for top-n recommendation tasks. Specifically, we considered 18 algorithms that were presented at top-level research conferences in the last years. Only 7 of them could be reproduced with reasonable effort. For these methods, it however turned out that 6 of them can often be outperformed with comparably simple heuristic methods, e.g., based on nearest-neighbor or graph-based techniques. The remaining one clearly outperformed the baselines but did not consistently outperform a well-tuned non-neural linear ranking method. Overall, our work sheds light on a number of potential problems in today's machine learning scholarship and calls for improved scientific practices in this area. Source code of our experiments and full results are available at: https://github.com/MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="1907.06902")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubtf report
fotol1/RecSysPapersReviews mentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · honoured contract
1ran · our draft was wrong
1unverified

Licence: 3 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

get_result_string MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation/Base/Evaluation/Evaluator.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong AGPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · c64c9866e05562b9 · report
sampling MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation/Conferences/IJCAI/ConvNCF_our_interface/ConvNCF.py official repository ran · honoured contract AGPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · 7df4bfdf341a52b0 · report
shuffle MaurizioFD/RecSys2019_DeepLearning_Evaluation/Conferences/IJCAI/ConvNCF_our_interface/ConvNCF.py official repository unverified AGPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · 6f9a56e47e7765ae · report

Tasks

BIG-bench Machine LearningRecommendation Systems

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections