Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Leveraging Opposite Gender Interaction Ratio as a Path towards Fairness in Online Dating Recommendations Based on User Sexual Orientation (2402.12541v1)

Published 19 Feb 2024 in cs.IR

Abstract: Online dating platforms have gained widespread popularity as a means for individuals to seek potential romantic relationships. While recommender systems have been designed to improve the user experience in dating platforms by providing personalized recommendations, increasing concerns about fairness have encouraged the development of fairness-aware recommender systems from various perspectives (e.g., gender and race). However, sexual orientation, which plays a significant role in finding a satisfying relationship, is under-investigated. To fill this crucial gap, we propose a novel metric, Opposite Gender Interaction Ratio (OGIR), as a way to investigate potential unfairness for users with varying preferences towards the opposite gender. We empirically analyze a real online dating dataset and observe existing recommender algorithms could suffer from group unfairness according to OGIR. We further investigate the potential causes for such gaps in recommendation quality, which lead to the challenges of group quantity imbalance and group calibration imbalance. Ultimately, we propose a fair recommender system based on re-weighting and re-ranking strategies to respectively mitigate these associated imbalance challenges. Experimental results demonstrate both strategies improve fairness while their combination achieves the best performance towards maintaining model utility while improving fairness.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (40)
  1. Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. In HICSS, 3858–3867. IEEE.
  2. Context-aware recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook, 217–253. Springer.
  3. User-to-user recommendation using the concept of movement patterns: A study using a dating social network. In IC3K.
  4. Recommender System for Online Dating Service. In Znalosti. Ostrava: VSB.
  5. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In SIGIR, 335–336.
  6. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. JAIR, 16: 321–357.
  7. Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 13(1): 3–66.
  8. Fairness-aware explainable recommendation over knowledge graphs. In SIGIR, 69–78.
  9. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In SIGIR, 639–648.
  10. Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1): 130–163.
  11. An Agent-based Model to Evaluate Interventions on Online Dating Platforms to Decrease Racial Homogamy. In FAccT.
  12. Survey on deep learning with class imbalance. Journal of Big Data, 6(1): 1–54.
  13. Jones, J. M. 2021. LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest US estimate. Gallup News, 24.
  14. Interaction-based collaborative filtering methods for recommendation in online dating. In WISE, 342–356. Springer.
  15. Online dating recommender systems: The split-complex number approach. In RecSys workshop.
  16. User-oriented fairness in recommendation. In Web Conference.
  17. Fairness in Recommendation: A Survey. arXiv:2205.13619.
  18. From Looking for Love to Swiping the Field: Online Dating in the US.
  19. Investigating gender fairness of recommendation algorithms in the music domain. Information Processing & Management, 58(5): 102666.
  20. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I. Mathematical programming, 14(1): 265–294.
  21. Matchmaking under fairness constraints: a speed dating case study. In Bias, 43–57. Springer.
  22. RECON: a reciprocal recommender for online dating. In RecSys, 207–214.
  23. A rejection mind-set: Choice overload in online dating. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(3): 388–396.
  24. BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. arXiv:1205.2618.
  25. Meeting online: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. Paper session presented at the Population Association of America Meetings, Dallas, TX.
  26. Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. ProcNAS, 116(36): 17753–17758.
  27. Characteristic functions on graphs: Birds of a feather, from statistical descriptors to parametric models. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 1325–1334.
  28. Quantifying the impact of user attentionon fair group representation in ranked lists. In WWW, 553–562.
  29. Steck, H. 2018. Calibrated recommendations. In RecSys.
  30. Online dating recommendations: matching markets and learning preferences. In WWW.
  31. Neural graph collaborative filtering. In SIGIR, 165–174.
  32. A survey on the fairness of recommender systems. JACM.
  33. Improving fairness in graph neural networks via mitigating sensitive attribute leakage. In In KDD.
  34. Collaboration-Aware Graph Convolutional Network for Recommender Systems. In ACM Web Conference, 91–101.
  35. Reciprocal recommendation system for online dating. In ASONAM, 234–241. IEEE.
  36. User Recommendations in Reciprocal and Bipartite Social Networks–An Online Dating Case Study. IEEE intelligent systems, 29(2): 27–35.
  37. Rabbit holes and taste distortion: Distribution-aware recommendation with evolving interests. In WWW, 888–899.
  38. Fairness and Diversity in Recommender Systems: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04644.
  39. What you like, what i am: online dating recommendation via matching individual preferences with features. IEEE TKDE.
  40. Fairness in reciprocal recommendations: a speed-dating study. In UMAP, 29–34.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Yuying Zhao (25 papers)
  2. Yu Wang (940 papers)
  3. Yi Zhang (995 papers)
  4. Pamela Wisniewski (25 papers)
  5. Charu Aggarwal (38 papers)
  6. Tyler Derr (48 papers)
Citations (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.