Reinforcement Learning based Recommender Systems: A Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommender systems (RSs) have become an inseparable part of our everyday lives. They help us find our favorite items to purchase, our friends on social networks, and our favorite movies to watch. Traditionally, the recommendation problem was considered to be a classification or prediction problem, but it is now widely agreed that formulating it as a sequential decision problem can better reflect the user-system interaction. Therefore, it can be formulated as a Markov decision process (MDP) and be solved by reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms. Unlike traditional recommendation methods, including collaborative filtering and content-based filtering, RL is able to handle the sequential, dynamic user-system interaction and to take into account the long-term user engagement. Although the idea of using RL for recommendation is not new and has been around for about two decades, it was not very practical, mainly because of scalability problems of traditional RL algorithms. However, a new trend has emerged in the field since the introduction of deep reinforcement learning (DRL) , which made it possible to apply RL to the recommendation problem with large state and action spaces. In this paper, a survey on reinforcement learning based recommender systems (RLRSs) is presented. Our aim is to present an outlook on the field and to provide the reader with a fairly complete knowledge of key concepts of the field. We first recognize and illustrate that RLRSs can be generally classified into RL- and DRL-based methods. Then, we propose an RLRS framework with four components, i.e., state representation, policy optimization, reward formulation, and environment building, and survey RLRS algorithms accordingly. We highlight emerging topics and depict important trends using various graphs and tables. Finally, we discuss important aspects and challenges that can be addressed in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".