Fairness and relevance are two important aspects of recommender systems (RSs). Typically, they are evaluated either (i) separately by individual measures of fairness and relevance, or (ii) jointly using a single measure that accounts for fairness with respect to relevance. However, approach (i) often does not provide a reliable joint estimate of the goodness of the models, as it has two different best models: one for fairness and another for relevance. Approach (ii) is also problematic because these measures tend to be ad-hoc and do not relate well to traditional relevance measures, like NDCG. Motivated by this, we present a new approach for jointly evaluating fairness and relevance in RSs: Distance to Pareto Frontier (DPFR). Given some user-item interaction data, we compute their Pareto frontier for a pair of existing relevance and fairness measures, and then use the distance from the frontier as a measure of the jointly achievable fairness and relevance. Our approach is modular and intuitive as it can be computed with existing measures. Experiments with 4 RS models, 3 re-ranking strategies, and 6 datasets show that existing metrics have inconsistent associations with our Pareto-optimal solution, making DPFR a more robust and theoretically well-founded joint measure for assessing fairness and relevance. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/DPFR-recsys-evaluation
Exposure bias is a well-known issue in recommender systems where items and suppliers are not equally represented in the recommendation results. This bias becomes particularly problematic over time as a few items are repeatedly over-represented in recommendation lists, leading to a feedback loop that further amplifies this bias. Although extensive research has addressed this issue in model-based or neighborhood-based recommendation algorithms, less attention has been paid to online recommendation models, such as those based on top-K contextual bandits, where recommendation models are dynamically updated with ongoing user feedback. In this paper, we study exposure bias in a class of well-known contextual bandit algorithms known as Linear Cascading Bandits. We analyze these algorithms in their ability to handle exposure bias and provide a fair representation of items in the recommendation results. Our analysis reveals that these algorithms fail to mitigate exposure bias in the long run during the course of ongoing user interactions. We propose an Exposure-Aware reward model that updates the model parameters based on two factors: 1) implicit user feedback and 2) the position of the item in the recommendation list. The proposed model mitigates exposure bias by controlling the utility assigned to the items based on their exposure in the recommendation list. Our experiments with two real-world datasets show that our proposed reward model improves the exposure fairness of the linear cascading bandits over time while maintaining the recommendation accuracy. It also outperforms the current baselines. Finally, we prove a high probability upper regret bound for our proposed model, providing theoretical guarantees for its performance.
Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We empirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.
Typical recommendation and ranking methods aim to optimize the satisfaction of users, but they are often oblivious to their impact on the items (e.g., products, jobs, news, video) and their providers. However, there has been a growing understanding that the latter is crucial to consider for a wide range of applications, since it determines the utility of those being recommended. Prior approaches to fairness-aware recommendation optimize a regularized objective to balance user satisfaction and item fairness based on some notion such as exposure fairness. These existing methods have been shown to be effective in controlling fairness, however, most of them are computationally inefficient, limiting their applications to only unrealistically small-scale situations. This indeed implies that the literature does not yet provide a solution to enable a flexible control of exposure in the industry-scale recommender systems where millions of users and items exist. To enable a computationally efficient exposure control even for such large-scale systems, this work develops a scalable, fast, and fair method called \emph{\textbf{ex}posure-aware \textbf{ADMM} (\textbf{exADMM})}. exADMM is based on implicit alternating least squares (iALS), a conventional scalable algorithm for collaborative filtering, but optimizes a regularized objective to achieve a flexible control of accuracy-fairness tradeoff. A particular technical challenge in developing exADMM is the fact that the fairness regularizer destroys the separability of optimization subproblems for users and items, which is an essential property to ensure the scalability of iALS. Therefore, we develop a set of optimization tools to enable yet scalable fairness control with provable convergence guarantees as a basis of our algorithm.
Existing approaches to fairness in stochastic multi-armed bandits (MAB) primarily focus on exposure guarantee to individual arms. When arms are naturally grouped by certain attribute(s), we propose Bi-Level Fairness, which considers two levels of fairness. At the first level, Bi-Level Fairness guarantees a certain minimum exposure to each group. To address the unbalanced allocation of pulls to individual arms within a group, we consider meritocratic fairness at the second level, which ensures that each arm is pulled according to its merit within the group. Our work shows that we can adapt a UCB-based algorithm to achieve a Bi-Level Fairness by providing (i) anytime Group Exposure Fairness guarantees and (ii) ensuring individual-level Meritocratic Fairness within each group. We first show that one can decompose regret bounds into two components: (a) regret due to anytime group exposure fairness and (b) regret due to meritocratic fairness within each group. Our proposed algorithm BF-UCB balances these two regrets optimally to achieve the upper bound of $O(\sqrt{T})$ on regret; $T$ being the stopping time. With the help of simulated experiments, we further show that BF-UCB achieves sub-linear regret; provides better group and individual exposure guarantees compared to existing algorithms; and does not result in a significant drop in reward with respect to UCB algorithm, which does not impose any fairness constraint.
Fairness is an emerging and challenging topic in recommender systems. In recent years, various ways of evaluating and therefore improving fairness have emerged. In this study, we examine existing evaluation measures of fairness in recommender systems. Specifically, we focus solely on exposure-based fairness measures of individual items that aim to quantify the disparity in how individual items are recommended to users, separate from item relevance to users. We gather all such measures and we critically analyse their theoretical properties. We identify a series of limitations in each of them, which collectively may render the affected measures hard or impossible to interpret, to compute, or to use for comparing recommendations. We resolve these limitations by redefining or correcting the affected measures, or we argue why certain limitations cannot be resolved. We further perform a comprehensive empirical analysis of both the original and our corrected versions of these fairness measures, using real-world and synthetic datasets. Our analysis provides novel insights into the relationship between measures based on different fairness concepts, and different levels of measure sensitivity and strictness. We conclude with practical suggestions of which fairness measures should be used and when. Our code is publicly available. To our knowledge, this is the first critical comparison of individual item fairness measures in recommender systems.
Prior research on exposure fairness in the context of recommender systems has focused mostly on disparities in the exposure of individual or groups of items to individual users of the system. The problem of how individual or groups of items may be systemically under or over exposed to groups of users, or even all users, has received relatively less attention. However, such systemic disparities in information exposure can result in observable social harms, such as withholding economic opportunities from historically marginalized groups (allocative harm) or amplifying gendered and racialized stereotypes (representational harm). Previously, Diaz et al. developed the expected exposure metric -- that incorporates existing user browsing models that have previously been developed for information retrieval -- to study fairness of content exposure to individual users. We extend their proposed framework to formalize a family of exposure fairness metrics that model the problem jointly from the perspective of both the consumers and producers. Specifically, we consider group attributes for both types of stakeholders to identify and mitigate fairness concerns that go beyond individual users and items towards more systemic biases in recommendation. Furthermore, we study and discuss the relationships between the different exposure fairness dimensions proposed in this paper, as well as demonstrate how stochastic ranking policies can be optimized towards said fairness goals.