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.
Exposure bias is a well-known issue in recommender systems where the exposure is not fairly distributed among items in the recommendation results. This is especially problematic when bias is amplified over time as a few items (e.g., popular ones) are repeatedly over-represented in recommendation lists and users' interactions with those items will amplify bias towards those items over time resulting in a feedback loop. This issue has been extensively studied in the literature in static recommendation environment where a single round of recommendation result is processed to improve the exposure fairness. However, less work has been done on addressing exposure bias in a dynamic recommendation setting where the system is operating over time, the recommendation model and the input data are dynamically updated with ongoing user feedback on recommended items at each round. In this paper, we study exposure bias in a dynamic recommendation setting. Our goal is to show that existing bias mitigation methods that are designed to operate in a static recommendation setting are unable to satisfy fairness of exposure for items in long run. In particular, we empirically study one of these methods and show that repeatedly applying this method fails to fairly distribute exposure among items in long run. To address this limitation, we show how this method can be adapted to effectively operate in a dynamic recommendation setting and achieve exposure fairness for items in long run. Experiments on a real-world dataset confirm that our solution is superior in achieving long-term exposure fairness for the items while maintaining the recommendation accuracy.
Ranking systems are the key components of modern Information Retrieval (IR) applications, such as search engines and recommender systems. Besides the ranking relevance to users, the exposure fairness to item providers has also been considered an important factor in ranking optimization. Many fair ranking algorithms have been proposed to jointly optimize both ranking relevance and fairness. However, we find that most existing fair ranking methods adopt greedy algorithms that only optimize rankings for the next immediate session or request. As shown in this paper, such a myopic paradigm could limit the upper bound of ranking optimization and lead to suboptimal performance in the long term. To this end, we propose \textbf{FARA}, a novel \textbf{F}uture-\textbf{A}ware \textbf{R}anking \textbf{A}lgorithm for ranking relevance and fairness optimization. Instead of greedily optimizing rankings for the next immediate session, FARA plans ahead by jointly optimizing multiple ranklists together and saving them for future sessions. Specifically, FARA first uses the Taylor expansion to investigate how future ranklists will influence the overall fairness of the system. Then, based on the analysis of the Taylor expansion, FARA adopts a two-phase optimization algorithm where we first solve an optimal future exposure planning problem and then construct the optimal ranklists according to the optimal future exposure planning. Theoretically, we show that FARA is optimal for ranking relevance and fairness joint optimization. Empirically, our extensive experiments on three semi-synthesized datasets show that FARA is efficient, effective, and can deliver significantly better ranking performance compared to state-of-the-art fair ranking methods. We make our implementation public at \href{https://github.com/Taosheng-ty/QP_fairness/}{https://github.com/Taosheng-ty/QP\_fairness/}.
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.
Ranking algorithms in recommender systems influence people to make decisions. Conventional ranking algorithms based on implicit feedback data aim to maximize the utility to users by capturing users’ preferences over items. However, these utility-focused algorithms tend to cause fairness issues that require careful consideration in online platforms. Existing fairness-focused studies does not explicitly consider the problem of lacking negative feedback in implicit feedback data, while previous utility-focused methods ignore the importance of fairness in recommendations. To fill this gap, we propose a Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) based learning algorithm FairGAN mapping the exposure fairness issue to the problem of negative preferences in implicit feedback data. FairGAN does not explicitly treat unobserved interactions as negative, but instead, adopts a novel fairness-aware learning strategy to dynamically generate fairness signals. This optimizes the search direction to make FairGAN capable of searching the space of the optimal ranking that can fairly allocate exposure to individual items while preserving users’ utilities as high as possible.
Result ranking often affects consumer satisfaction as well as the amount of exposure each item receives in the ranking services. Myopically maximizing customer satisfaction by ranking items only according to relevance will lead to unfair distribution of exposure for items, followed by unfair opportunities and economic gains for item producers/providers. Such unfairness will force providers to leave the system and discourage new providers from coming in. Eventually, fewer purchase options would be left for consumers, and the utilities of both consumers and providers would be harmed. Thus, to maintain a balance between ranking relevance and fairness is crucial for both parties. In this paper, we focus on the exposure fairness in ranking services. We demonstrate that existing methods for amortized fairness optimization could be suboptimal in terms of fairness-relevance tradeoff because they fail to utilize the prior knowledge of consumers. We further propose a novel algorithm named Vertical Allocation-based Fair Exposure Amortizing in Ranking, or VerFair, to reach a better balance between exposure fairness and ranking performance. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets show that VerFair significantly outperforms state-of-the-art fair ranking algorithms in fairness-performance trade-offs from both the individual level and the group level.
Fairness is a critical system-level objective in recommender systems that has been the subject of extensive recent research. It is especially important in multi-sided recommendation platforms where it may be crucial to optimize utilities not just for the end user, but also for other actors such as item sellers or producers who desire a fair representation of their items. Existing solutions do not properly address various aspects of multi-sided fairness in recommendations as they may either solely have one-sided view (i.e. improving the fairness only for one side), or do not appropriately measure the fairness for each actor involved in the system. In this thesis, I aim at first investigating the impact of unfair recommendations on the system and how these unfair recommendations can negatively affect major actors in the system. Then, I seek to propose solutions to tackle the unfairness of recommendations. I propose a rating transformation technique that works as a pre-processing step before building the recommendation model to alleviate the inherent popularity bias in the input data and consequently to mitigate the exposure unfairness for items and suppliers in the recommendation lists. Also, as another solution, I propose a general graph-based solution that works as a post-processing approach after recommendation generation for mitigating the multi-sided exposure bias in the recommendation results. For evaluation, I introduce several metrics for measuring the exposure fairness for items and suppliers, and show that these metrics better capture the fairness properties in the recommendation results. I perform extensive experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. The experiments on different publicly-available datasets and comparison with various baselines confirm the superiority of the proposed solutions in improving the exposure fairness for items and suppliers.
Exposure bias is a well-known issue in recommender systems where items and suppliers are not equally represented in the recommendation results. This is especially problematic when bias is amplified over time as a few popular items are repeatedly over-represented in recommendation lists. This phenomenon can be viewed as a recommendation feedback loop: the system repeatedly recommends certain items at different time points and interactions of users with those items will amplify bias towards those items over time. This issue has been extensively studied in the literature on model-based or neighborhood-based recommendation algorithms, but less work has been done on online recommendation models such as those based on multi-armed Bandit algorithms. In this paper, we study exposure bias in a class of well-known bandit algorithms known as Linear Cascade Bandits. We analyze these algorithms on their ability to handle exposure bias and provide a fair representation for items and suppliers in the recommendation results. Our analysis reveals that these algorithms fail to treat items and suppliers fairly and do not sufficiently explore the item space for each user. To mitigate this bias, we propose a discounting factor and incorporate it into these algorithms that controls the exposure of items at each time step. To show the effectiveness of the proposed discounting factor on mitigating exposure bias, we perform experiments on two datasets using three cascading bandit algorithms and our experimental results show that the proposed method improves the exposure fairness for items and suppliers.
Fairness is a critical system-level objective in recommender systems that has been the subject of extensive recent research. A specific form of fairness is supplier exposure fairness where the objective is to ensure equitable coverage of items across all suppliers in recommendations provided to users. This is especially important in multistakeholder recommendation scenarios where it may be important to optimize utilities not just for the end-user, but also for other stakeholders such as item sellers or producers who desire a fair representation of their items. This type of supplier fairness is sometimes accomplished by attempting to increasing aggregate diversity in order to mitigate popularity bias and to improve the coverage of long-tail items in recommendations. In this paper, we introduce FairMatch, a general graph-based algorithm that works as a post processing approach after recommendation generation to improve exposure fairness for items and suppliers. The algorithm iteratively adds high quality items that have low visibility or items from suppliers with low exposure to the users' final recommendation lists. A comprehensive set of experiments on two datasets and comparison with state-of-the-art baselines show that FairMatch, while significantly improves exposure fairness and aggregate diversity, maintains an acceptable level of relevance of the recommendations.
As we all know, users and item-providers are two main parties of participants in recommender systems. However, most existing research efforts on recommendation were focused on better serving users and overlooked the purpose of item-providers. This paper is devoted to improve the item exposure fairness for item-providers' objective, and keep the recommendation accuracy not decreased or even improved for users' objective. We propose to set stock volume constraints on items, to be specific, limit the maximally allowable recommended times of an item to be proportional to the frequency of its being interacted in the past, which is validated to achieve superior item exposure fairness to common recommenders and thus mitigates the Matthew Effect on item popularity. With the two constraints of pre-existing recommendation length of users and our stock volumes of items, a heuristic strategy based on normalized scores and a Minimum Cost Maximum Flow (MCMF) based model are proposed to solve the optimal user-item matching problem, whose accuracy performances are even better than that of baseline algorithm in regular recommendation context, and in line with state-of-the-art enhancement of the baseline. What's more, our MCMF based strategy is parameter-free, while those counterpart algorithms have to resort to parameter traversal process to achieve their best performance.