Cited by 369Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research

Disentangling User Interest and Conformity for Recommendation with Causal Embedding

Open access
Zheng, Yu, Gao, Chen, Li, Xiang, He, Xiangnan, Li, Yong, Jin, Depeng·2021·Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021

Abstract

Recommendation models are usually trained on observational interaction data. However, observational interaction data could result from users’ conformity towards popular items, which entangles users’ real interest. Existing methods tracks this problem as eliminating popularity bias, e.g., by re-weighting training samples or leveraging a small fraction of unbiased data. However, the variety of user conformity is ignored by these approaches, and different causes of an interaction are bundled together as unified representations, hence robustness and interpretability are not guaranteed when underlying causes are changing. In this paper, we present DICE, a general framework that learns representations where interest and conformity are structurally disentangled, and various backbone recommendation models could be smoothly integrated. We assign users and items with separate embeddings for interest and conformity, and make each embedding capture only one cause by training with cause-specific data which is obtained according to the colliding effect of causal inference. Our proposed methodology outperforms state-of-the-art baselines with remarkable improvements on two real-world datasets on top of various backbone models. We further demonstrate that the learned embeddings successfully capture the desired causes, and show that DICE guarantees the robustness and interpretability of recommendation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3442381.3449788

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zheng, Y., Gao, C., Li, X., He, X., Li, Y., & Jin, D.
Affiliations
  • Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology (CN)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-04-19
Pages
2980-2991
OpenAlex
W3156622960
Cited by
356
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 9
FWCI
51.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U19A2079, 61971267, 61972223, 61861136003, U1936217, 61941117)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020AAA0106000)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Keywords
recommender systems, popularity bias, disentangled representations, causal inference, interpretability, robustness, user interest modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review