What Gets Measured Gets Managed: Sign-aware Recommendation Needs Sign-aware Evaluation

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

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