Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3450614.3461685acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Beyond Algorithmic Fairness in Recommender Systems

Published: 22 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Fairness is one of the crucial aspects of modern Recommender Systems which has recently drawn substantial attention from the community. Many recent works have addressed this aspect by studying the fairness of the recommendation through different forms of evaluation methodologies and metrics. However, the majority of these works have mainly concentrated on the recommendation algorithms and hence measured the fairness from the algorithmic viewpoint. While such viewpoint may still play an important role, it does not necessarily project a comprehensive picture of how the users may perceive the overall fairness of a recommender system.
This paper extends the prior works and goes beyond the algorithmic fairness in recommender systems by highlighting the non-algorithmic viewpoint on the fairness in these systems. The paper proposes an evaluation methodology that can be used to assess the fairness of a recommender system perceived by its users. We have adopted a well-known model and re-formulated it to suit the particular characteristics of the recommender systems, and accordingly, their corresponding users. Our proposed methodology can be used in order to elicit the feedback of the users, along with three important dimensions, i.e., Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression. We have formed a set of survey questions that address the aforementioned dimensions, as a set of examples to assess the fairness in a recommender system.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (UMAP-ADJ21-umap07lb.mp4)
Fairness is one of the crucial aspects of modern Recommender Systems which has recently drawn substantial attention from the community. Many recent works have addressed this aspect by studying the fairness of the recommendation through different forms of evaluation methodologies and metrics. This paper extends the prior works and goes beyond the al- algorithmic fairness in recommender systems by highlighting the non-algorithmic viewpoint on the fairness in these systems. The paper proposes an evaluation methodology that can be used to assess the fairness of a recommender system perceived by its users. We have adopted a well-known model and re-formulated it to suit the particular characteristics of the recommender systems, and ac- accordingly, their corresponding users. Our proposed methodology can be used in order to elicit the feedback of the users, along with three important dimensions, i.e., Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression.

References

[1]
Himan Abdollahpouri, Gediminas Adomavicius, Robin Burke, Ido Guy, Dietmar Jannach, Toshihiro Kamishima, Jan Krasnodebski, and Luiz Pizzato. 2020. Multistakeholder recommendation: Survey and research directions. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 30, 1 (2020).
[2]
Himan Abdollahpouri, Masoud Mansoury, Robin Burke, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2019. The unfairness of popularity bias in recommendation. In RecSys Workshop on Recommendation in Multistakeholder Environments (RMSE).
[3]
Gediminas Adomavicius, Jesse Bockstedt, Shawn Curley, and Jingjing Zhang. 2014. De-Biasing User Preference Ratings in Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the Joint Workshop on Interfaces and Human Decision Making for Recommender Systems co-located with ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2014). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1253/
[4]
Alex Beutel, Jilin Chen, Tulsee Doshi, Hai Qian, Li Wei, Yi Wu, Lukasz Heldt, Zhe Zhao, Lichan Hong, Ed H Chi, 2019. Fairness in recommendation ranking through pairwise comparisons. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2212–2220.
[5]
Joel Brockner, Mary Konovsky, Rochelle Cooper-Schneider, Robert Folger, Christopher Martin, and Robert J. Bies. 1994. Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and Outcome Negativity on Victims and Survivors of Job Loss. Academy of Management Journal 37, 2 (April 1994), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.5465/256835 Publisher: Academy of Management.
[6]
Abhijnan Chakraborty, Gourab K Patro, Niloy Ganguly, Krishna P Gummadi, and Patrick Loiseau. 2019. Equality of voice: Towards fair representation in crowdsourced top-k recommendations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 129–138.
[7]
Rebecca M. Chory‐Assad and Michelle L. Paulsel. 2004. Classroom justice: student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education 53, 3 (July 2004), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000265189 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000265189.
[8]
Paolo Cremonesi, Mehdi Elahi, and Franca Garzotto. 2017. User interface patterns in recommendation-empowered content intensive multimedia applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 76, 4 (2017), 5275–5309.
[9]
Yashar Deldjoo, Vito Walter Anelli, Hamed Zamani, Alejandro Bellogin, and Tommaso Di Noia. 2020. A flexible framework for evaluating user and item fairness in recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction(2020), 1–47.
[10]
Michael D. Ekstrand, Mucun Tian, Ion Madrazo Azpiazu, Jennifer D. Ekstrand, Oghenemaro Anuyah, David McNeill, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2018. All The Cool Kids, How Do They Fit In?: Popularity and Demographic Biases in Recommender Evaluation and Effectiveness. In In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 172–186.
[11]
Michael D Ekstrand, Mucun Tian, Mohammed R Imran Kazi, Hoda Mehrpouyan, and Daniel Kluver. 2018. Exploring author gender in book rating and recommendation. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 242–250.
[12]
Nieke A. Elbers, Alex Collie, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Katherine Lippel, Keri Lockwood, and Ian D. Cameron. 2016. Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study. BMC Public Health 16, 1 (July 2016), 658. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3331-3
[13]
Miriam Evans and Alyssa R Boucher. 2015. Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education 9, 2 (2015), 87–91.
[14]
Stephen W. Gilliland. 1993. The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective. The Academy of Management Review 18, 4 (1993), 694–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258595 Publisher: Academy of Management.
[15]
Ben Hutchinson and Margaret Mitchell. 2019. 50 years of test (un) fairness: Lessons for machine learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 49–58.
[16]
Dominik Kowald, Markus Schedl, and Elisabeth Lex. 2020. The unfairness of popularity bias in music recommendation: A reproducibility study. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 35–42.
[17]
Jurek Leonhardt, Avishek Anand, and Megha Khosla. 2018. User fairness in recommender systems. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018. 101–102.
[18]
Masoud Mansoury, Himan Abdollahpouri, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Bamshad Mobasher, and Robin Burke. 2020. Feedback loop and bias amplification in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 2145–2148.
[19]
Rishabh Mehrotra, James McInerney, Hugues Bouchard, Mounia Lalmas, and Fernando Diaz. 2018. Towards a fair marketplace: Counterfactual evaluation of the trade-off between relevance, fairness & satisfaction in recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 27th acm international conference on information and knowledge management. 2243–2251.
[20]
Alessandro B Melchiorre, Eva Zangerle, and Markus Schedl. 2020. Personality Bias of Music Recommendation Algorithms. In Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 533–538.
[21]
Silvia Milano, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2020. Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. AI & SOCIETY 35, 4 (2020), 957–967.
[22]
Dimitris Paraschakis. 2016. Recommender systems from an industrial and ethical perspective. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 463–466.
[23]
Gourab K Patro, Arpita Biswas, Niloy Ganguly, Krishna P Gummadi, and Abhijnan Chakraborty. 2020. Fairrec: Two-sided fairness for personalized recommendations in two-sided platforms. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 1194–1204.
[24]
Manish Raghavan, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, and Karen Levy. 2020. Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 469–481.
[25]
Kavita Rao, Sean J Smith, and K Alisa Lowrey. 2017. UDL and intellectual disability: What do we know and where do we go?Intellectual and developmental disabilities 55, 1 (2017), 37–47.
[26]
David Rose. 2000. Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology 15, 3 (2000), 45–49.
[27]
Jessie Smith, Nasim Sonboli, Casey Fiesler, and Robin Burke. 2020. Exploring User Opinions of Fairness in Recommender Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06461(2020).
[28]
Tom R. Tyler. 1984. The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendants’ Evaluations of Their Courtroom Experience. Law & Society Review 18, 1 (1984), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053480 Publisher: [Wiley, Law and Society Association].
[29]
Kathryn Kavanagh Webb and Jeanne K Hoover. 2015. Universal design for learning (UDL) in the academic library: A methodology for mapping multiple means of representation in library tutorials. (2015).

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Recommend Me? Designing Fairness Metrics with ProvidersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3659044(2389-2399)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2023)A review on individual and multistakeholder fairness in tourism recommender systemsFrontiers in Big Data10.3389/fdata.2023.11686926Online publication date: 10-May-2023
  • (2023)Computational Versus Perceived Popularity Miscalibration in Recommender SystemsProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3539618.3591964(1889-1893)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
UMAP '21: Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
June 2021
431 pages
ISBN:9781450383677
DOI:10.1145/3450614
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 June 2021

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. evaluation
  2. fairness
  3. recommender systems

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • Industry partners and the Research Council of Norway

Conference

UMAP '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 162 of 633 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

UMAP '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)134
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 02 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Recommend Me? Designing Fairness Metrics with ProvidersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3659044(2389-2399)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2023)A review on individual and multistakeholder fairness in tourism recommender systemsFrontiers in Big Data10.3389/fdata.2023.11686926Online publication date: 10-May-2023
  • (2023)Computational Versus Perceived Popularity Miscalibration in Recommender SystemsProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3539618.3591964(1889-1893)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
  • (2023)Towards adaptive and transparent tourism recommendations: A surveyExpert Systems10.1111/exsy.13400Online publication date: 18-Jul-2023
  • (2023)Fairness Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence: A Review and Path ForwardInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.221089040:1(4-23)Online publication date: 26-May-2023
  • (2022)Multiperspective and Multidisciplinary Treatment of Fairness in Recommender Systems ResearchAdjunct Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3511047.3536400(90-94)Online publication date: 4-Jul-2022
  • (2022)Evaluating unfairness of popularity bias in recommender systemsInformation Processing and Management: an International Journal10.1016/j.ipm.2022.10310059:6Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Rank-sensitive proportional aggregations in dynamic recommendation scenariosUser Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction10.1007/s11257-021-09311-w32:4(685-746)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2022
  • (2022)Evaluation of Fairness in Recommender Systems: A ReviewEmerging Technologies in Computer Engineering: Cognitive Computing and Intelligent IoT10.1007/978-3-031-07012-9_39(456-465)Online publication date: 26-May-2022
  • (2021)A Closer-to-Reality Model for Comparing Relevant Dimensions of Recommender Systems, with Application to NoveltyInformation10.3390/info1212050012:12(500)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media