aiqbench analysis
This research exposes the hidden instability in recommender system evaluations caused by random training seeds, demonstrating that single-run results often overstate model performance. By treating seed variation as a core component of the evaluation protocol rather than incidental noise, researchers can ensure more robust and reproducible findings across different hyperparameter configurations. The study provides critical guidance for improving the reliability of machine learning benchmarks in recommendation tasks.
Training seeds and model-selection stability in recommender-system evaluation
arXiv:2609.02499v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recommender-system experiments often rely on a single random training seed, assuming that run-to-run stochasticity has limited impact on evaluation conclusions. This assumption is risky, as a training seed may influence several algorithm-dependent mechanisms, including parameter initialization, mini-batch ordering, dropout, masking, latent sampling, and training-time negative sampling. We examine this assumption by fixing the data partition and varying the training seed across hyperparameter configurations. We analyze seed effects at three levels: user-level metric sensitivity, validation-based model selection and recommendation-list agreement. Results show that seed variation is often detectable. Its impact depends on whether configurations are clearly separated, whether validation results transfer to test, and whether similar scores lead to similar top-$k$ lists. Findings suggest that reporting single-seed results can overstate the stability of recommender system evaluation, and that training seeds should be treated as part of the evaluation protocol rather than as incidental implementation noise.
Abstract:Recommender-system experiments often rely on a single random training seed, assuming that run-to-run stochasticity has limited impact on evaluation conclusions. This assumption is risky, as a training seed may influence several algorithm-dependent mechanisms, including parameter initialization, mini-batch ordering, dropout, masking, latent sampling, and training-time negative sampling. We examine this assumption by fixing the data partition and varying the training seed across hyperparameter configurations. We analyze seed effects at three levels: user-level metric sensitivity, validation-based model selection and recommendation-list agreement. Results show that seed variation is often detectable. Its impact depends on whether configurations are clearly separated, whether validation results transfer to test, and whether similar scores lead to similar top-$k$ lists. Findings suggest that reporting single-seed results can overstate the stability of recommender system evaluation, and that training seeds should be treated as part of the evaluation protocol rather than as incidental implementation noise.
Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.02499 [cs.IR]
(or arXiv:2609.02499v1 [cs.IR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.02499 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.1145/3773078.3841289 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 251 words
Related coverage

Challenge: Hand coding weights for efficient sequence memorisation
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 23, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026

Inference meta-monitoring for Amazon SageMaker AI endpoints with Amazon Quick
AWS · Jul 30, 2026