Beyond Personalization: Research Directions in Multistakeholder Recommendation

Recommender systems are personalized information access applications; they are ubiquitous in today's online environment, and effective at finding items that meet user needs and tastes. As the reach of recommender systems has extended, it has become apparent that the single-minded focus on the user common to academic research has obscured other important aspects of recommendation outcomes. Properties such as fairness, balance, profitability, and reciprocity are not captured by typical metrics for recommender system evaluation. The concept of multistakeholder recommendation has emerged as a unifying framework for describing and understanding recommendation settings where the end user is not the sole focus. This article describes the origins of multistakeholder recommendation, and the landscape of system designs. It provides illustrative examples of current research, as well as outlining open questions and research directions for the field.Comment: 64 page

Popularity Bias in Recommendation: A Multi-stakeholder Perspective

Traditionally, especially in academic research in recommender systems, the focus has been solely on the satisfaction of the end-user. While user satisfaction has, indeed, been associated with the success of the business, it is not the only factor. In many recommendation domains, there are other stakeholders whose needs should be taken into account in the recommendation generation and evaluation. In this dissertation, I describe the notion of multi-stakeholder recommendation. In particular, I study one of the most important challenges in recommendation research, popularity bias, from a multi-stakeholder perspective since, as I show later in this dissertation, it impacts different stakeholders in a recommender system. Popularity bias is a well-known phenomenon in recommender systems where popular items are recommended even more frequently than their popularity would warrant, amplifying long-tail effects already present in many recommendation domains. Prior research has examined various approaches for mitigating popularity bias and enhancing the recommendation of long-tail items overall. The effectiveness of these approaches, however, has not been assessed in multi-stakeholder environments. In this dissertation, I study the impact of popularity bias in recommender systems from a multi-stakeholder perspective. In addition, I propose several algorithms each approaching the popularity bias mitigation from a different angle and compare their performances using several metrics with some other state-of-the-art approaches in the literature. I show that, often, the standard evaluation measures of popularity bias mitigation in the literature do not reflect the real picture of an algorithm's performance when it is evaluated from a multi-stakeholder point of view.Comment: PhD Dissertation in Information Science (University of Colorado Boulder

Recommender systems and their ethical challenges

This article presents the first, systematic analysis of the ethical challenges posed by recommender systems through a literature review. The article identifies six areas of concern, and maps them onto a proposed taxonomy of different kinds of ethical impact. The analysis uncovers a gap in the literature: currently user-centred approaches do not consider the interests of a variety of other stakeholders—as opposed to just the receivers of a recommendation—in assessing the ethical impacts of a recommender system

Recommender systems fairness evaluation via generalized cross entropy

Fairness in recommender systems has been considered with respect to sensitive attributes of users (e.g., gender, race) or items (e.g., revenue in a multistakeholder setting). Regardless, the concept has been commonly interpreted as some form of equality – i.e., the degree to which the system is meeting the information needs of all its users in an equal sense. In this paper, we argue that fairness in recommender systems does not necessarily imply equality, but instead it should consider a distribution of resources based on merits and needs.We present a probabilistic framework based ongeneralized cross entropy to evaluate fairness of recommender systems under this perspective, wherewe showthat the proposed framework is flexible and explanatory by allowing to incorporate domain knowledge (through an ideal fair distribution) that can help to understand which item or user aspects a recommendation algorithm is over- or under-representing. Results on two real-world datasets show the merits of the proposed evaluation framework both in terms of user and item fairnessThis work was supported in part by the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval and in part by project TIN2016-80630-P (MINECO