Search for: All records

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor — such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about AI capabilities. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception — in addition to a more expansive understanding of (1) methodological rigor — should include aspects related to (2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); (3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); (4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); (5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and (6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community’s work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders. 

Recommender systems are usually designed by engineers, researchers, designers, and other members of development teams. These systems are then evaluated based on goals set by the aforementioned teams and other business units of the platforms operating the recommender systems. This design approach emphasizes the designers’ vision for how the system can best serve the interests of users, providers, businesses, and other stakeholders. Although designers may be well-informed about user needs through user experience and market research, they are still the arbiters of the system’s design and evaluation, with other stakeholders’ interests less emphasized in user-centered design and evaluation. When extended to recommender systems for social good, this approach results in systems that reflect the social objectives as envisioned by the designers and evaluated as the designers understand them. Instead, social goals and operationalizations should be developed through participatory and democratic processes that are accountable to their stakeholders. We argue that recommender systems aimed at improving social good should be designedbyandwith, not justfor, the people who will experience their benefits and harms. That is, they should be designed in collaboration with their users, creators, and other stakeholders as full co-designers, not only as user study participants. 

Data is an essential resource for studying recommender systems. While there has been significant work on improving and evaluating state-of-the-art models and measuring various properties of recommender system outputs, less attention has been given to the data itself, particularly how data has changed over time. Such documentation and analysis provide guidance and context for designing and evaluating recommender systems, particularly for evaluation designs making use of time (e.g., temporal splitting). In this paper, we present a temporal explanatory analysis of the UCSD Book Graph dataset scraped from Goodreads, a social reading and recommendation platform active since 2006. We measure the book interaction data using a set of activity, diversity, and fairness metrics; we then train a set of collaborative filtering algorithms on rolling training windows to observe how the same measures evolve over time in the recommendations. Additionally, we explore whether the introduction of algorithmic recommendations in 2011 was followed by observable changes in user or recommender system behavior. 

As recommender systems are prone to various biases, mitigation approaches are needed to ensure that recommendations are fair to various stakeholders. One particular concern in music recommendation is artist gender fairness. Recent work has shown that the gender imbalance in the sector translates to the output of music recommender systems, creating a feedback loop that can reinforce gender biases over time. In this work, we examine whether algorithmic strategies or user behavior are a greater contributor to ongoing improvement (or loss) in fairness as models are repeatedly re-trained on new user feedback data. We simulate this repeated process to investigate the effects of ranking strategies and user choice models on gender fairness metrics. We find re-ranking strategies have a greater effect than user choice models on recommendation fairness over time. 

While there has been significant research on statistical techniques for comparing two information retrieval (IR) systems, many IR experiments test more than two systems. This can lead to inflated false discoveries due to the multiple-comparison problem (MCP). A few IR studies have investigated multiple comparison procedures; these studies mostly use TREC data and control the familywise error rate. In this study, we extend their investigation to include recommendation system evaluation data as well as multiple comparison procedures that controls for False Discovery Rate (FDR). 

Information access systems, such as search engines and recommender systems, order and position results based on their estimated relevance. These results are then evaluated for a range of concerns, including provider-side fairness: whether exposure to users is fairly distributed among items and the people who created them. Several fairness-aware ranking and re-ranking techniques have been proposed to ensure fair exposure for providers, but this work focuses almost exclusively on linear layouts in which items are displayed in single ranked list. Many widely-used systems use other layouts, such as the grid views common in streaming platforms, image search, and other applications. Providing fair exposure to providers in such layouts is not well-studied. We seek to fill this gap by providing a grid-aware re-ranking algorithm to optimize layouts for provider-side fairness by adapting existing re-ranking techniques to grid-aware browsing models, and an analysis of the effect of grid-specific factors such as device size on the resulting fairness optimization. Our work provides a starting point and identifies open gaps in ensuring provider-side fairness in grid-based layouts. 

Information Retrieval (IR) systems have a wide range of impacts on *consumers*. We offer maps to help identify goals IR systems could---or should---strive for, and guide the process of *scoping how to gauge a wide range of consumer-side impacts and the possible interventions needed to address these effects. Grounded in prior work on scoping algorithmic impact efforts, our goal is to promote and facilitate research that (1) is grounded in impacts on information consumers, contextualizing these impacts in the broader landscape of positive and negative consumer experience; (2) takes a broad view of the possible means of changing or improving that impact, including non-technical interventions; and (3) uses operationalizations and strategies that are well-matched to the technical, social, ethical, legal, and other dimensions of the specific problem in question. 

The strategy for selecting candidate sets — the set of items that the recommendation system is expected to rank for each user — is an important decision in carrying out an offline top-N recommender system evaluation. The set of candidates is composed of the union of the user’s test items and an arbitrary number of non-relevant items that we refer to as decoys. Previous studies have aimed to understand the effect of different candidate set sizes and selection strategies on evaluation. In this paper, we extend this knowledge by studying the specific interaction of candidate set selection strategies with popularity bias, and use simulation to assess whether sampled candidate sets result in metric estimates that are less biased with respect to the true metric values under complete data that is typically unavailable in ordinary experiments. 

A number of information retrieval studies have been done to assess which statistical techniques are appropriate for comparing systems. However, these studies are focused on TREC-style experiments, which typically have fewer than 100 topics. There is no similar line of work for large search and recommendation experiments; such studies typically have thousands of topics or users and much sparser relevance judgements, so it is not clear if recommendations for analyzing traditional TREC experiments apply to these settings. In this paper, we empirically study the behavior of significance tests with large search and recommendation evaluation data. Our results show that the Wilcoxon and Sign tests show significantly higher Type-1 error rates for large sample sizes than the bootstrap, randomization and t-tests, which were more consistent with the expected error rate. While the statistical tests displayed differences in their power for smaller sample sizes, they showed no difference in their power for large sample sizes. We recommend the sign and Wilcoxon tests should not be used to analyze large scale evaluation results. Our result demonstrate that with Top-\(N\) recommendation and large search evaluation data, most tests would have a 100% chance of finding statistically significant results. Therefore, the effect size should be used to determine practical or scientific significance. 

Current practice for evaluating recommender systems typically focuses on point estimates of user-oriented effectiveness metrics or business metrics, sometimes combined with additional metrics for considerations such as diversity and novelty. In this paper, we argue for the need for researchers and practitioners to attend more closely to various distributions that arise from a recommender system (or other information access system) and the sources of uncertainty that lead to these distributions. One immediate implication of our argument is that both researchers and practitioners must report and examine more thoroughly the distribution of utility between and within different stakeholder groups. However, distributions of various forms arise in many more aspects of the recommender systems experimental process, and distributional thinking has substantial ramifications for how we design, evaluate, and present recommender systems evaluation and research results. Leveraging and emphasizing distributions in the evaluation of recommender systems is a necessary step to ensure that the systems provide appropriate and equitably-distributed benefit to the people they affect.