  Interactive Recommender Systems (IRSs) have attracted a lot of attention, due
to their ability to model interactive processes between users and recommender
systems. Numerous approaches have adopted Reinforcement Learning (RL)
algorithms, as these can directly maximize users' cumulative rewards. In IRS,
researchers commonly utilize publicly available review datasets to compare and
evaluate algorithms. However, user feedback provided in public datasets merely
includes instant responses (e.g., a rating), with no inclusion of delayed
responses (e.g., the dwell time and the lifetime value). Thus, the question
remains whether these review datasets are an appropriate choice to evaluate the
long-term effects of the IRS. In this work, we revisited experiments on IRS
with review datasets and compared RL-based models with a simple reward model
that greedily recommends the item with the highest one-step reward. Following
extensive analysis, we can reveal three main findings: First, a simple greedy
reward model consistently outperforms RL-based models in maximizing cumulative
rewards. Second, applying higher weighting to long-term rewards leads to a
degradation of recommendation performance. Third, user feedbacks have mere
long-term effects on the benchmark datasets. Based on our findings, we conclude
that a dataset has to be carefully verified and that a simple greedy baseline
should be included for a proper evaluation of RL-based IRS approaches.
