online retail teams

Abstract: Sign-aware recommender systems have recently been developed to leverage negative feedback for a deeper understanding of user preferences. However, our empirical diagnosis reveals that state-of-the-art graph-based sign-aware recommender systems are paradoxically valence-blind. Even though they explicitly incorporate sign information during training, they consistently fail to differentiate liked items from disliked ones at the ranking stage, frequently infiltrating top-K recommendations with disliked content. Through linear probing, we show that while valence information exists in the learned embeddings, it remains inaccessible to the inner-product scoring function. This widespread failure remains entirely undetected because conventional evaluation metrics, such as Recall, HR, and NDCG, assign a uniform utility of zero to both negative and unobserved items, creating a systematic evaluation blind spot. To bridge this gap, we propose a family of signed metrics, Signed Recall, Signed HR, and Signed NDCG, that explicitly penalize the recommendation of disliked content. Systematic re-evaluation under our proposed metrics fundamentally reshapes the established performance landscape, revealing that methods ranked highly under conventional metrics often fail to protect users from disliked content. Finally, through a proof-of-concept auxiliary loss, we confirm that the proposed metrics provide actionable training signals, guiding models toward valence-aware behavior without sacrificing conventional relevance. For transparency, our source code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/signed-rec-benchmark-07E4

Abstract: Recommender systems engineer serendipity to foster active exploration and break predictable consumption cycles. The problem with existing offline beyond-accuracy metrics is that they often either isolate historical similarity or global popularity. We aim to design an evaluation metric that examines similarity, popularity, and actual user relevance. To achieve this, we introduce SPADE (Serendipitous Pareto Distance Evaluation). SPADE maps all items into a two-dimensional space to directly calculate a user-specific Pareto frontier of maximally popular and historically similar items. The final serendipity score is then computed by averaging the minimum Euclidean distance from this boundary strictly for the correctly recommended test-set items. Evaluating SPADE across five datasets and five baseline algorithms confirms its effectiveness; our results show that the metric successfully prevents algorithms from exploiting beyond-accuracy measures with irrelevant or non-personalized recommendations, reliably isolating serendipitous discoveries.

Abstract: Evaluating user experience (UX) on live websites through user testing is expensive, subjective, and difficult to scale. LLM agents offer a promising route to automating UX testing by simulating realistic user behaviour. However, existing simulation approaches typically lack multimodality and require time-consuming manual review to extract actionable insights. We formalise UX improvement recommendation from simulation data as a structured natural language generation and ranking problem, and establish an evaluation protocol using expert annotation and LLM-as-a-Judge. We present AMUSER, a multimodal framework which simulates user behaviour and automatically generates prioritised UX improvement recommendations from resulting data. We evaluate AMUSER on commercial websites and show that its recommendations substantially outperform those from text-only simulation (NDCG@3 = 0.758 versus 0.359) at an 89% lower simulation cost. Our results suggest an asymmetric role of multimodality: visual access during simulation improves recommendations through richer traces, while providing visual inputs during recommendation generation can modestly degrade quality. We also discuss practical deployment lessons from applying AMUSER to commercial websites.