ReviewInnovation (Cambridge (Mass.))2024
A survey on causal inference for recommendation.
Review in Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal Structure Learning Assumptions Shape Counterfactual Safety: Expert-Guided Constraints vs. Data-Driven DAGs with Probabilistic Logic Twin Networks.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Gradient-Based Multiple Robust Learning Calibration on Data Missing-Not-at-Random via Bi-Level Optimization.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Causal inference has recently garnered significant interest among recommender system (RS) researchers due to its ability to dissect cause-and-effect relationships and its broad applicability across multiple fields. It offers a framework to model the causality in RSs such as confounding effects and deal with counterfactual problems such as offline policy evaluation and data augmentation. Although there are already some valuable surveys on causal recommendations, they typically classify approaches based on the practical issues faced in RS, a classification that may disperse and fragment the unified causal theories. Considering RS researchers' unfamiliarity with causality, it is necessary yet challenging to comprehensively review relevant studies from a coherent causal theoretical perspective, thereby facilitating a deeper integration of causal inference in RS. This survey provides a systematic review of up-to-date papers in this area from a causal theory standpoint and traces the evolutionary development of RS methods within the same causal strategy. First, we introduce the fundamental concepts of causal inference as the basis of the following review. Subsequently, we propose a novel theory-driven taxonomy, categorizing existing methods based on the causal theory employed, namely those based on the potential outcome framework, the structural causal model, and general counterfactuals. The review then delves into the technical details of how existing methods apply causal inference to address particular recommender issues. Finally, we highlight some promising directions for future research in this field. Representative papers and open-source resources will be progressively available at https://github.com/Chrissie-Law/Causal-Inference-for-Recommendation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.