Interpolating Item and User Fairness in Multi-Sided Recommendations

↗ OpenReview ↗ NeurIPS Homepage ↗ Chat

TL;DR

#

Key Takeaways

#

Why does it matter?

#

This paper is crucial for researchers working on fairness in recommendation systems. It directly addresses the critical challenge of multi-sided fairness, offering a novel framework and algorithm that surpasses existing methods in flexibility and efficacy. Its implications extend to various domains, and its theoretical foundation opens new avenues for exploring online constrained optimization with bandit feedback.

Visual Insights

#

This figure displays the results of experiments conducted using Amazon review data to evaluate the performance of the proposed FORM algorithm and compare it against various baselines. Subfigure (a) shows the convergence of FORM’s revenue towards the optimal revenue obtained from solving the FAIR problem. Subfigure (b) compares the normalized revenue of different methods, revealing FORM’s ability to maintain high revenue while ensuring fairness. Subfigures (c) and (d) illustrate the item and user outcomes, respectively, demonstrating that FORM achieves satisfactory levels of fairness for both items and users.

This table lists several fairness notions commonly adopted in practice for multi-stakeholder problems, along with their corresponding social welfare functions. The social welfare function is a mathematical function that combines efficiency and fairness metrics into a single objective. Maximizing this function allows the selection of a solution that balances fairness and overall efficiency. Different notions are presented: maxmin fairness, Kalai-Smorodinsky fairness, Hooker-Williams fairness, Nash bargaining solution, and demographic parity. Each notion prioritizes fairness differently, and the choice depends on the specific context and stakeholder needs.

In-depth insights

#

Multisided Fairness

#

Multisided fairness in recommendation systems addresses the inherent complexities of balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders—users, items (sellers), and the platform itself—each with potentially conflicting objectives. A key challenge is defining what constitutes fairness across these groups. Simple approaches that prioritize one stakeholder (e.g., maximizing platform revenue) can severely disadvantage others, creating inequitable outcomes. Therefore, a flexible framework is needed that allows for configurable trade-offs between competing interests and the definition of fairness is context-dependent. Effective solutions involve algorithmic approaches that simultaneously optimize for multiple fairness metrics and platform goals. Data uncertainty in dynamic online settings adds further complexity; algorithms must be robust enough to learn user preferences and ensure fairness despite noisy or incomplete data. Successful multisided fair recommendation demands a thoughtful integration of optimization techniques, fairness metrics, and robust online learning, all tailored to the specific context and goals of the platform.

FORM Algorithm

#

The FORM (Fair Online Recommendation algorithm for Multi-sided platforms) algorithm is a crucial contribution of the research paper, addressing the challenge of creating fair and efficient recommendations in a dynamic, online setting with data uncertainty. It cleverly integrates real-time learning with fairness constraints, unlike existing methods that often treat these aspects separately. The algorithm’s novelty lies in its ability to handle uncertain fairness constraints, a limitation inherent in online environments where full data is unavailable. FORM employs a novel relaxation-then-exploration approach to balance exploration of less-seen items with the need to meet fairness criteria for all stakeholders. This approach includes incorporating randomized exploration to prevent an overemphasis on high-performing items and simultaneously solve a relaxed version of the main optimization problem. Theoretical analysis demonstrates FORM achieves sublinear regret bounds for both revenue and fairness, providing a strong guarantee of its efficacy. The algorithm’s flexibility and adaptability to various settings are significant, making it highly applicable to real-world online recommendation platforms.

Online Fairness

#

Online fairness in recommendation systems presents unique challenges compared to offline settings. The dynamic nature of online data streams necessitates real-time adaptation of fairness algorithms, demanding efficient and low-regret approaches. Data uncertainty introduces additional complexity, as the system must make fair recommendations while simultaneously learning about user preferences and item characteristics. Balancing exploration and exploitation becomes crucial, preventing the system from prematurely converging on unfair solutions while also maintaining platform revenue. Defining appropriate fairness metrics in an online environment that satisfy multiple stakeholder goals is also a key challenge. Algorithms must be robust to concept drift and evolving user behaviour while still maintaining theoretical fairness guarantees. Finally, scalability becomes critical as systems handle massive datasets and high-volume user traffic.

Amazon Case Study

#

The Amazon case study section likely demonstrates the framework’s real-world applicability by testing it on a real-world e-commerce dataset. It probably involves using Amazon product reviews to simulate a multi-sided recommendation platform, where items compete for visibility and user attention. The study likely measures the algorithm’s effectiveness in maximizing revenue while upholding fairness criteria for both items and users. Key performance indicators (KPIs) might include revenue generated, item exposure, and user satisfaction metrics, comparing the proposed algorithm against established baselines. Results likely showcase the algorithm’s ability to balance platform revenue with fairness. The study might also analyze how different fairness parameters impact the trade-off between fairness and revenue, illustrating the algorithm’s flexibility. A crucial aspect is the discussion of the challenges faced in applying the theoretical framework to real-world data, including noisy data and limitations in measuring fairness, thereby highlighting the practical significance of the proposed approach. Finally, the study likely concludes with insights into algorithm parameter tuning and the trade-offs involved in different fairness-revenue objectives.

Future Work

#

The “Future Work” section of this research paper presents exciting avenues for extending the current research. Addressing the limitations of the online setting, such as data sparsity and uncertainty, is crucial. Investigating long-term fairness impacts and adapting fairness notions to evolving user preferences and item attributes is vital for practical application. Expanding the framework beyond recommender systems to dynamic pricing and advertising scenarios would significantly broaden the impact. Finally, rigorous empirical evaluations on various datasets with different user populations and item characteristics are necessary to fully validate the approach’s generalizability and robustness, ideally including controlled A/B tests with real-world platforms to assess the trade-offs between fairness and revenue.

More visual insights

#

More on figures

This figure presents the results of experiments conducted using Amazon review data to evaluate the performance of the proposed FORM algorithm and compare it against several baselines. The experiments aim to maximize platform revenue while satisfying fairness constraints for both items and users. Subfigures (a) and (b) show the convergence of revenue and normalized revenue respectively. Subfigures (c) and (d) illustrate the normalized item and user outcomes. The results demonstrate that the FORM algorithm effectively balances revenue maximization with fairness considerations.

This figure displays the results of experiments conducted on Amazon review data to evaluate the performance of the FORM algorithm and compare it with other baselines in terms of revenue generation and fairness. The plots show (a) the convergence of FORM’s revenue towards the optimal revenue from solving the FAIR problem, (b) the normalized revenue of different methods compared to the optimal revenue, (c) the normalized outcomes of items, and (d) the normalized outcomes of users. The results are averaged over 10 simulations to provide statistical significance, with error bars representing the standard deviation divided by the square root of 10.

This figure presents the results of experiments conducted on Amazon review data to evaluate the performance of the proposed FORM algorithm and compare it with several baselines. Panel (a) shows the convergence of FORM’s revenue to the optimal revenue obtained by solving the FAIR problem in hindsight. Panel (b) compares the normalized revenue of different methods, showing FORM’s ability to balance revenue and fairness. Panels (c) and (d) illustrate the item and user outcomes, respectively, normalized by their outcomes under the corresponding fair solutions. The results demonstrate that FORM effectively maintains platform revenue while ensuring desired fairness levels for both items and users.

This figure presents the results of experiments conducted on Amazon review data to evaluate the performance of the proposed FORM algorithm against six baselines. It shows the convergence of revenue to the optimal revenue obtained by solving Problem (FAIR) in hindsight. It also compares the time-averaged revenue (normalized by OPT-REV) of FORM to that of the baselines, demonstrating FORM’s ability to maintain a high revenue while achieving specified fairness levels for items and users. Further, the figure displays the item and user outcomes, normalized by the outcomes under item-fair and user-fair solutions respectively, showing that FORM effectively balances the outcomes of the multiple stakeholders.

The figure shows the results of experiments conducted on Amazon review data to evaluate the performance of FORM, a fair online recommendation algorithm. It displays four subfigures: (a) convergence of revenue, (b) normalized revenue, (c) item outcomes, and (d) user outcomes. Subfigure (a) shows how the average revenue obtained using FORM approaches the optimal revenue calculated in hindsight using Problem (FAIR). Subfigures (b), (c), and (d) compare FORM’s performance against several baseline algorithms in terms of revenue, item fairness, and user fairness, respectively. The results demonstrate that FORM achieves high revenue while maintaining desired fairness levels for both items and users. The shaded areas represent the standard deviations.

Full paper

#