A Field Test of Bandit Algorithms for Recommendations: Understanding the Validity of Assumptions on Human Preferences in Multi-armed Bandits

Personalized recommender systems suffuse modern life, shaping what media we read and what products we consume. Algorithms powering such systems tend to consist of supervised-learning-based heuristics, such as latent factor models with a variety of heuristically chosen prediction targets. Meanwhile, theoretical treatments of recommendation frequently address the decision-theoretic nature of the problem, including the need to balance exploration and exploitation, via the multi-armed bandits (MABs) framework. However, MAB-based approaches rely heavily on assumptions about human preferences. These preference assumptions are seldom tested using human subject studies, partly due to the lack of publicly available toolkits to conduct such studies. In this work, we conduct a study with crowdworkers in a comics recommendation MABs setting. Each arm represents a comic category, and users provide feedback after each recommendation. We check the validity of core MABs assumptions—that human preferences (reward distributions) are fixed over time—and find that they do not hold. This finding suggests that any MAB algorithm used for recommender systems should account for human preference dynamics. While answering these questions, we provide a flexible experimental framework for understanding human preference dynamics and testing MABs algorithms with human users. The code for our experimental framework and the collected data can be found at https://github.com/HumainLab/human-bandit-evaluation.