Papers › Towards Resolving Propensity Contradiction in Offline Recommender Learning

Towards Resolving Propensity Contradiction in Offline Recommender Learning

16 Oct 2019arXiv:1910.07295archive 2025-07-28

Yuta Saito, Masahiro Nomura

We study offline recommender learning from explicit rating feedback in the presence of selection bias. A current promising solution for the bias is the inverse propensity score (IPS) estimation. However, the performance of existing propensity-based methods can suffer significantly from the propensity estimation bias. In fact, most of the previous IPS-based methods require some amount of missing-completely-at-random (MCAR) data to accurately estimate the propensity. This leads to a critical self-contradiction; IPS is ineffective without MCAR data, even though it originally aims to learn recommenders from only missing-not-at-random feedback. To resolve this propensity contradiction, we derive a propensity-independent generalization error bound and propose a novel algorithm to minimize the theoretical bound via adversarial learning. Our theory and algorithm do not require a propensity estimation procedure, thereby leading to a well-performing rating predictor without the true propensity information. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach is superior to a range of existing methods both in rating prediction and ranking metrics in practical settings without MCAR data.

Code

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

12 samples harvested; 1 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 12 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 usaito/ijcai2022-adversarial-mf. “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.

Tasks

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