Search for: All records

Recommender systems are poised at the interface between stakeholders: for example, job applicants and employers in the case of recommendations of employment listings, or artists and listeners in the case of music recommendation. In such multisided platforms, recommender systems play a key role in enabling discovery of products and information at large scales. However, as they have become more and more pervasive in society, the equitable distribution of their benefits and harms have been increasingly under scrutiny, as is the case with machine learning generally. While recommender systems can exhibit many of the biases encountered in other machine learning settings, the intersection of personalization and multisidedness makes the question of fairness in recommender systems manifest itself quite differently. In this article, we discuss recent work in the area of multisided fairness in recommendation, starting with a brief introduction to core ideas in algorithmic fairness and multistakeholder recommendation. We describe techniques for measuring fairness and algorithmic approaches for enhancing fairness in recommendation outputs. We also discuss feedback and popularity effects that can lead to unfair recommendation outcomes. Finally, we introduce several promising directions for future research in this area.

 

Though recommender systems are defined by personalization, recent work has shown the importance of additional, beyond-accuracy objectives, such as fairness. Because users often expect their recommendations to be purely personalized, these new algorithmic objectives must be communicated transparently in a fairness-aware recommender system. While explanation has a long history in recommender systems research, there has been little work that attempts to explain systems that use a fairness objective. Even though the previous work in other branches of AI has explored the use of explanations as a tool to increase fairness, this work has not been focused on recommendation. Here, we consider user perspectives of fairness-aware recommender systems and techniques for enhancing their transparency. We describe the results of an exploratory interview study that investigates user perceptions of fairness, recommender systems, and fairness-aware objectives. We propose three features – informed by the needs of our participants – that could improve user understanding of and trust in fairness-aware recommender systems. 

Recommendation and ranking systems are known to suffer from popularity bias; the tendency of the algorithm to favor a few popular items while under-representing the majority of other items. Prior research has examined various approaches for mitigating popularity bias and enhancing the recommendation of long-tail, less popular, items. The effectiveness of these approaches is often assessed using different metrics to evaluate the extent to which over-concentration on popular items is reduced. However, not much attention has been given to the user-centered evaluation of this bias; how different users with different levels of interest towards popular items are affected by such algorithms. In this paper, we show the limitations of the existing metrics to evaluate popularity bias mitigation when we want to assess these algorithms from the users’ perspective and we propose a new metric that can address these limitations. In addition, we present an effective approach that mitigates popularity bias from the user-centered point of view. Finally, we investigate several state-of-the-art approaches proposed in recent years to mitigate popularity bias and evaluate their performances using the existing metrics and also from the users’ perspective. Our experimental results using two publicly-available datasets show that existing popularity bias mitigation techniques ignore the users’ tolerance towards popular items. Our proposed user-centered method can tackle popularity bias effectively for different users while also improving the existing metrics. 

It is well known that explicit user ratings in recommender systems are biased toward high ratings and that users differ significantly in their usage of the rating scale. Implementers usually compensate for these issues through rating normalization or the inclusion of a user bias term in factorization models. However, these methods adjust only for the central tendency of users’ distributions. In this work, we demonstrate that a lack of flatness in rating distributions is negatively correlated with recommendation performance. We propose a rating transformation model that compensates for skew in the rating distribution as well as its central tendency by converting ratings into percentile values as a pre-processing step before recommendation generation. This transformation flattens the rating distribution, better compensates for differences in rating distributions, and improves recommendation performance. We also show that a smoothed version of this transformation can yield more intuitive results for users with very narrow rating distributions. A comprehensive set of experiments, with state-of-the-art recommendation algorithms in four real-world datasets, show improved ranking performance for these percentile transformations. 

Comparative experimentation is important for studying reproducibility in recommender systems. This is particularly true in areas without well-established methodologies, such as fairness-aware recommendation. In this paper, we describe fairness-aware enhancements to our recommender systems experimentation tool librec-auto. These enhancements include metrics for various classes of fairness definitions, extension of the experimental model to support result re-ranking and a library of associated re-ranking algorithms, and additional support for experiment automation and reporting. The associated demo will help attendees move quickly to configuring and running their own experiments with librec-auto. 

Recently there has been a growing interest in fairness-aware recommender systems including fairness in providing consistent performance across different users or groups of users. A recommender system could be considered unfair if the recommendations do not fairly represent the tastes of a certain group of users while other groups receive recommendations that are consistent with their preferences. In this paper, we use a metric called miscalibration for measuring how a recommendation algorithm is responsive to users’ true preferences and we consider how various algorithms may result in different degrees of miscalibration for different users. In particular, we conjecture that popularity bias which is a well-known phenomenon in recommendation is one important factor leading to miscalibration in recommendation. Our experimental results using two real-world datasets show that there is a connection between how different user groups are affected by algorithmic popularity bias and their level of interest in popular items. Moreover, we show that the more a group is affected by the algorithmic popularity bias, the more their recommendations are miscalibrated. 

Recommender systems learn from past user preferences in order to predict future user interests and provide users with personalized suggestions. Previous research has demonstrated that biases in user profiles in the aggregate can influence the recommendations to users who do not share the majority preference. One consequence of this bias propagation effect is miscalibration, a mismatch between the types or categories of items that a user prefers and the items provided in recommendations. In this paper, we conduct a systematic analysis aimed at identifying key characteristics in user profiles that might lead to miscalibrated recommendations. We consider several categories of profile characteristics, including similarity to the average user, propensity towards popularity, profile diversity, and preference intensity. We develop predictive models of miscalibration and use these models to identify the most important features correlated with miscalibration, given different algorithms and dataset characteristics. Our analysis is intended to help system designers predict miscalibration effects and to develop recommendation algorithms with improved calibration properties. 

As recommender systems have become more widespread and moved into areas with greater social impact, such as employment and housing, researchers have begun to seek ways to ensure fairness in the results that such systems produce. This work has primarily focused on developing recommendation approaches in which fairness metrics are jointly optimized along with recommendation accuracy. However, the previous work had largely ignored how individual preferences may limit the ability of an algorithm to produce fair recommendations. Furthermore, with few exceptions, researchers have only considered scenarios in which fairness is measured relative to a single sensitive feature or attribute (such as race or gender). In this paper, we present a re-ranking approach to fairness-aware recommendation that learns individual preferences across multiple fairness dimensions and uses them to enhance provider fairness in recommendation results. Specifically, we show that our opportunistic and metric-agnostic approach achieves a better trade-off between accuracy and fairness than prior re-ranking approaches and does so across multiple fairness dimensions.