Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
80 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Dynamic fairness-aware recommendation through multi-agent social choice (2303.00968v3)

Published 2 Mar 2023 in cs.AI

Abstract: Algorithmic fairness in the context of personalized recommendation presents significantly different challenges to those commonly encountered in classification tasks. Researchers studying classification have generally considered fairness to be a matter of achieving equality of outcomes between a protected and unprotected group, and built algorithmic interventions on this basis. We argue that fairness in real-world application settings in general, and especially in the context of personalized recommendation, is much more complex and multi-faceted, requiring a more general approach. We propose a model to formalize multistakeholder fairness in recommender systems as a two stage social choice problem. In particular, we express recommendation fairness as a novel combination of an allocation and an aggregation problem, which integrate both fairness concerns and personalized recommendation provisions, and derive new recommendation techniques based on this formulation. Simulations demonstrate the ability of the framework to integrate multiple fairness concerns in a dynamic way.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (63)
  1. Long-term Dynamics of Fairness Intervention in Connection Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 22–35.
  2. Online Fair Division: Analysing a Food Bank problem. In Proc. 24th International Joint Conference on AI (IJCAI). IJCAI, 2540–2546.
  3. Fair Division of Indivisible Goods: Recent Progress and Open Questions. Artificial Intelligence (2023), 103965.
  4. P. Awasthi and T. Sandholm. 2009. Online Stochastic Optimization in the Large: Application to Kidney Exchange.. In Proc. 21st International Joint Conference on AI (IJCAI). IJCAI, 405–411.
  5. Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California law review 104, 3 (2016), 671. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31
  6. Anna Bogomolnaia and Hervé Moulin. 2001. A new solution to the random assignment problem. Journal of Economic theory 100, 2 (2001), 295–328.
  7. Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Designing random allocation mechanisms: Theory and applications. American economic review 103, 2 (2013), 585–623.
  9. Francois Buet-Golfouse and Islam Utyagulov. 2022. Towards fair multi-stakeholder recommender systems. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. 255–265.
  10. Robin Burke. 2017. Multisided Fairness for Recommendation. In Workshop on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Machine Learning (FATML). Halifax, Nova Scotia, 5 pages. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00093
  11. Multi-agent Social Choice for Dynamic Fairness-aware Recommendation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. 234–244.
  12. A performance-preserving fairness intervention for adaptive microfinance recommendation. In Proceedings of the KDD Workshop on Online and Adapting Recommender Systems (OARS).
  13. Balanced Neighborhoods for Multi-sided Fairness in Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.). PMLR, New York, NY, USA, 202–214.
  14. Algorithmic Fairness, Institutional Logics, and Social Choice. In Harvard CRCS Workshop on AI for Social Good at 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2020). 5 pages.
  15. Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. 1998. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 335–336.
  16. How to use expert advice. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 44, 3 (1997), 427–485.
  17. Optimal envy-free cake cutting. In Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  18. Allocation Problems in Ride Sharing Platforms: Online Matching with Offline Reusable Resources. In Proc. Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI, 1007–1014.
  19. Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. The American economic review 97, 1 (2007), 242–259.
  20. Fairness in Information Access Systems. arXiv:2105.05779 [cs.IR]
  21. Who Pays? Personalization, Bossiness and the Cost of Fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.04043 (2022).
  22. Break the loop: Gender imbalance in music recommenders. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 249–254.
  23. Fair social choice in dynamic settings. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Marina del Rey, CA, 4580–4587.
  24. The (Im)possibility of fairness: different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making. Commun. ACM 64, 4 (April 2021), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1145/3433949
  25. Towards long-term fairness in recommendation. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, New York, 445–453.
  26. F Maxwell Harper and Joseph A Konstan. 2015. The MovieLens Datasets: History and Context. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 5, 4 (2015), 19.
  27. Ben Hutchinson and Margaret Mitchell. 2019. 50 Years of Test (Un)fairness. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency - FAT* ’19 (2019).
  28. What recommenders recommend: an analysis of recommendation biases and possible countermeasures. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 25 (2015), 427–491.
  29. Ensuring fairness in group recommendations by rank-sensitive balancing of relevance. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 101–110.
  30. Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness. arXiv:1711.05144 [cs.LG]
  31. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–35.
  32. FairSR: Fairness-aware sequential recommendation through multi-task learning with preference graph embeddings. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 13, 1 (2022), 1–21.
  33. Weiwen Liu and Robin Burke. 2018. Personalizing Fairness-aware Re-ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02921 (2018). Presented at the 2nd FATRec Workshop held at RecSys 2018, Vancouver, CA..
  34. An Axiomatic and Empirical Analysis of Mechanisms for Online Organ Matching. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Computational Social Choice (COMSOC). 24 pages.
  35. Bandit based Optimization of Multiple Objectives on a Music Streaming Platform. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 3224–3233.
  36. Controlling fairness and bias in dynamic learning-to-rank. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 429–438.
  37. Hervé Moulin. 2004. Fair division and collective welfare. MIT press.
  38. This thing called fairness: disciplinary confusion realizing a value in technology. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–36.
  39. Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
  40. Cathy O’Neil. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.
  41. Eric Pacuit. 2019. Voting Methods. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  42. Szilvia Pápai. 2000. Strategyproof assignment by hierarchical exchange. Econometrica 68, 6 (2000), 1403–1433.
  43. FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 1194–1204.
  44. Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directions. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1929–1942.
  45. Bid optimizing and inventory scoring in targeted online advertising. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 804–812.
  46. Scoping Fairness Objectives and Identifying Fairness Metrics for Recommender Systems: The Practitioners’ Perspective. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3648–3659.
  47. The Many Faces of Fairness: Exploring the Institutional Logics of Multistakeholder Microlending Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1652–1663.
  48. Microlending 2017 Data Set. https://doi.org/10.25810/PGJK-RR19
  49. ”And the Winner Is…”: Dynamic Lotteries for Multi-group Fairness-Aware Recommendation. arXiv:2009.02590 [cs.IR]
  50. Opportunistic Multi-Aspect Fairness through Personalized Re-Ranking. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (Genoa, Italy) (UMAP ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340631.3394846
  51. Two-sided fairness for repeated matchings in two-sided markets: A case study of a ride-hailing platform. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 3082–3092.
  52. William Thomson. 2011. Fair allocation rules. In Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 2. Elsevier, 393–506.
  53. T Nicolaus Tideman. 1987. Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare 4 (1987), 185–206.
  54. Display Advertising with Real-Time Bidding (RTB) and Behavioural Targeting. arXiv:1610.03013 [cs.GT]
  55. A multi-objective optimization framework for multi-stakeholder fairness-aware recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 2 (2022), 1–29.
  56. FASTER: A Dynamic Fairness-assurance Strategy for Session-based Recommender Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2023).
  57. Internet Advertising: An Interplay among Advertisers, Online Publishers, Ad Exchanges and Web Users. arXiv:1206.1754 [cs.IR]
  58. Real-time bidding for online advertising: measurement and analysis. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Data Mining for Online Advertising. ACM, 3.
  59. Fair Top-k Ranking with multiple protected groups. Information Processing & Management 59, 1 (2022), 102707.
  60. Dell Zhang and Jun Wang. 2021. Recommendation fairness: From static to dynamic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03150 (2021).
  61. Optimal real-time bidding for display advertising. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1077–1086.
  62. Fairness-aware tensor-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1153–1162.
  63. William S. Zwicker. 2016. Introduction to the Theory of Voting. In Handbook of Computational Social Choice, Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107446984.003
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (8)
  1. Amanda Aird (3 papers)
  2. Paresha Farastu (4 papers)
  3. Joshua Sun (3 papers)
  4. Cassidy All (4 papers)
  5. Amy Voida (2 papers)
  6. Nicholas Mattei (51 papers)
  7. Robin Burke (40 papers)
  8. Elena Štefancová (2 papers)
Citations (7)