skip to main content
10.1145/3640457.3691706acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrecsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Social Choice for Heterogeneous Fairness in Recommendation

Published: 08 October 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Algorithmic fairness in recommender systems requires close attention to the needs of a diverse set of stakeholders that may have competing interests. Previous work in this area has often been limited by fixed, single-objective definitions of fairness, built into algorithms or optimization criteria that are applied to a single fairness dimension or, at most, applied identically across dimensions. These narrow conceptualizations limit the ability to adapt fairness-aware solutions to the wide range of stakeholder needs and fairness definitions that arise in practice. Our work approaches recommendation fairness from the standpoint of computational social choice, using a multi-agent framework. In this paper, we explore the properties of different social choice mechanisms and demonstrate the successful integration of multiple, heterogeneous fairness definitions across multiple data sets.

References

[1]
Amanda Aird, Cassidy All, Paresha Farastu, Elena Stefancova, Joshua Sun, Nicholas Mattei, and Robin Burke. 2023. Exploring Social Choice Mechanisms for Recommendation Fairness in SCRUF. Presented at the 2023 FAccTRec Workshop on Responsible Recommendation. arxiv:2309.08621 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08621
[2]
Amanda Aird, Paresha Farastu, Joshua Sun, Elena Štefancová, Cassidy All, Amy Voida, Nicholas Mattei, and Robin Burke. 2024. Dynamic fairness-aware recommendation through multi-agent social choice. arxiv:2303.00968 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00968
[3]
Alex Beutel, Jilin Chen, Tulsee Doshi, Hai Qian, Li Wei, Yi Wu, Lukasz Heldt, Zhe Zhao, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi, and Cristos Goodrow. 2019. Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons., 16 pages. arxiv:1903.00780 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00780
[4]
Felix Brandt. 2017. Rolling the dice: Recent results in probabilistic social choice. In Trends in Computational Social Choice, Ulle Endriss (Ed.). AI Access, Chapter 1, 3–26.
[5]
Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. ACM, 77–91.
[6]
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
[7]
Robin Burke, Nicholas Mattei, Vladislav Grozin, Amy Voida, and Nasim Sonboli. 2022. Multi-agent Social Choice for Dynamic Fairness-aware Recommendation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. ACM, 234–244.
[8]
Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153–163.
[9]
Henriette Cramer, Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer W. Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miroslav Dudík, Hanna Wallach, Sravana Reddy, and Jean Garcia-Gathright. 2019. Challenges of incorporating algorithmic fairness into industry practice.
[10]
Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference. ACM, 214–226.
[11]
Michael D. Ekstrand, Anubrata Das, Robin Burke, and Fernando Diaz. 2022. Fairness in Information Access Systems. arxiv:2105.05779 [cs.IR]
[12]
Andres Ferraro, Xavier Serra, and Christine Bauer. 2021. Break the loop: Gender imbalance in music recommenders. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 249–254.
[13]
Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3315–3323.
[14]
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.
[15]
Úrsula Hébert-Johnson, Michael Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy Rothblum. 2018. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (Computationally-identifiable) masses. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 1944–1953.
[16]
Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer W. Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miroslav Dudík, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?. In Proceedings of the Conference of Human Computer Interaction (CHI’19). ACM, 16 pages. arXiv:1812.05239v2 [cs.HC] 7 Jan 2019
[17]
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. ACM, 49–58.
[18]
Faisal Kamiran, Toon Calders, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2010. Discrimination aware decision tree learning. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2010 IEEE 10th International Conference on. IEEE, 869–874.
[19]
Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2018. Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness. arxiv:1711.05144 [cs.LG]
[20]
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 Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2243–2251.
[21]
Arvind Narayanan. 2018. Translation tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics. In Proc. Conf. Fairness Accountability Transp., New York, USA, Vol. 1170. ACM, 3.
[22]
Eric Pacuit. 2019. Voting Methods. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
[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]
Gourab K Patro, Lorenzo Porcaro, Laura Mitchell, Qiuyue Zhang, Meike Zehlike, and Nikhil Garg. 2022. Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directions. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1929–1942.
[25]
Dino Pedreshi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini. 2008. Discrimination-aware data mining. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 560–568.
[26]
Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. ACM, New York, 59–68.
[27]
Jessie J Smith, Lex Beattie, and Henriette Cramer. 2023. Scoping Fairness Objectives and Identifying Fairness Metrics for Recommender Systems: The Practitioners’ Perspective. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3648–3659.
[28]
Nasim Sonboli, Amanda Aird, and Robin Burke. 2022. Microlending 2017 Data Set. University of Colorado Boulder. https://doi.org/10.25810/PGJK-RR19
[29]
Nasim Sonboli, Robin Burke, Michael Ekstrand, and Rishabh Mehrotra. 2022. The multisided complexity of fairness in recommender systems. AI magazine 43, 2 (2022), 164–176.
[30]
Nasim Sonboli, Robin Burke, Nicholas Mattei, Farzad Eskandanian, and Tian Gao. 2020. "And the Winner Is...": Dynamic Lotteries for Multi-group Fairness-Aware Recommendation. Presented at the 2020 FAccTRec Workshop on Responsible Recommendation. arxiv:2009.02590 [cs.IR]
[31]
Nasim Sonboli, Farzad Eskandanian, Robin Burke, Weiwen Liu, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2020. 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
[32]
Tom Sühr, Asia J Biega, Meike Zehlike, Krishna P Gummadi, and Abhijnan Chakraborty. 2019. 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.
[33]
Haolun Wu, Chen Ma, Bhaskar Mitra, Fernando Diaz, and Xue Liu. 2022. A multi-objective optimization framework for multi-stakeholder fairness-aware recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 2 (2022), 1–29.
[34]
Meike Zehlike, Tom Sühr, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, and Sara Hajian. 2022. Fair Top-k Ranking with multiple protected groups. Information Processing & Management 59, 1 (2022), 102707.
[35]
Rich Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toni Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. 2013. Learning fair representations. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-13). 325–333.
[36]
Lu Zhang and Xintao Wu. 2017. Anti-discrimination learning: a causal modeling-based framework. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 4 (2017), 1–16.
[37]
Ziwei Zhu, Xia Hu, and James Caverlee. 2018. Fairness-aware tensor-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1153–1162.
[38]
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

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
RecSys '24: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
October 2024
1438 pages
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: 08 October 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. computational social choice
  2. fairness
  3. recommender systems

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 254 of 1,295 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 113
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)113
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

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

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media