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

Counterfactual Reasoning for Bias Evaluation and Detection in a Fairness under Unawareness setting

Current AI regulations require discarding sensitive features (e.g., gender, race, religion) in the algorithm's decision-making process to prevent unfair outcomes. However, even without sensitive features in the training set, algorithms can persist in discrimination. Indeed, when sensitive features are omitted (fairness under unawareness), they could be inferred through non-linear relations with the so called proxy features. In this work, we propose a way to reveal the potential hidden bias of a machine learning model that can persist even when sensitive features are discarded. This study shows that it is possible to unveil whether the black-box predictor is still biased by exploiting counterfactual reasoning. In detail, when the predictor provides a negative classification outcome, our approach first builds counterfactual examples for a discriminated user category to obtain a positive outcome. Then, the same counterfactual samples feed an external classifier (that targets a sensitive feature) that reveals whether the modifications to the user characteristics needed for a positive outcome moved the individual to the non-discriminated group. When this occurs, it could be a warning sign for discriminatory behavior in the decision process. Furthermore, we leverage the deviation of counterfactuals from the original sample to determine which features are proxies of specific sensitive information. Our experiments show that, even if the model is trained without sensitive features, it often suffers discriminatory biases

Counterfactual Fair Opportunity: Measuring Decision Model Fairness with Counterfactual Reasoning

The increasing application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning models poses potential risks of unfair behavior and, in light of recent regulations, has attracted the attention of the research community. Several researchers focused on seeking new fairness definitions or developing approaches to identify biased predictions. However, none try to exploit the counterfactual space to this aim. In that direction, the methodology proposed in this work aims to unveil unfair model behaviors using counterfactual reasoning in the case of fairness under unawareness setting. A counterfactual version of equal opportunity named counterfactual fair opportunity is defined and two novel metrics that analyze the sensitive information of counterfactual samples are introduced. Experimental results on three different datasets show the efficacy of our methodologies and our metrics, disclosing the unfair behavior of classic machine learning and debiasing models

A flexible framework for evaluating user and item fairness in recommender systems

This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-020-09285-1One common characteristic of research works focused on fairness evaluation (in machine learning) is that they call for some form of parity (equality) either in treatment—meaning they ignore the information about users’ memberships in protected classes during training—or in impact—by enforcing proportional beneficial outcomes to users in different protected classes. In the recommender systems community, fairness has been studied with respect to both users’ and items’ memberships in protected classes defined by some sensitive attributes (e.g., gender or race for users, revenue in a multi-stakeholder setting for items). Again here, 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 work, we propose a probabilistic framework based on generalized cross entropy (GCE) to measure fairness of a given recommendation model. The framework comes with a suite of advantages: first, it allows the system designer to define and measure fairness for both users and items and can be applied to any classification task; second, it can incorporate various notions of fairness as it does not rely on specific and predefined probability distributions and they can be defined at design time; finally, in its design it uses a gain factor, which can be flexibly defined to contemplate different accuracy-related metrics to measure fairness upon decision-support metrics (e.g., precision, recall) or rank-based measures (e.g., NDCG, MAP). An experimental evaluation on four real-world datasets shows the nuances captured by our proposed metric regarding fairness on different user and item attributes, where nearest-neighbor recommenders tend to obtain good results under equality constraints. We observed that when the users are clustered based on both their interaction with the system and other sensitive attributes, such as age or gender, algorithms with similar performance values get different behaviors with respect to user fairness due to the different way they process data for each user clusterThe authors thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades (Reference: 123496 Y. Deldjoo et al. PID2019-108965GB-I00) and in part by the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor

Privacy-Aware Recommender Systems Challenge on Twitter's Home Timeline

Recommender systems constitute the core engine of most social network platforms nowadays, aiming to maximize user satisfaction along with other key business objectives. Twitter is no exception. Despite the fact that Twitter data has been extensively used to understand socioeconomic and political phenomena and user behaviour, the implicit feedback provided by users on Tweets through their engagements on the Home Timeline has only been explored to a limited extent. At the same time, there is a lack of large-scale public social network datasets that would enable the scientific community to both benchmark and build more powerful and comprehensive models that tailor content to user interests. By releasing an original dataset of 160 million Tweets along with engagement information, Twitter aims to address exactly that. During this release, special attention is drawn on maintaining compliance with existing privacy laws. Apart from user privacy, this paper touches on the key challenges faced by researchers and professionals striving to predict user engagements. It further describes the key aspects of the RecSys 2020 Challenge that was organized by ACM RecSys in partnership with Twitter using this dataset.Comment: 16 pages, 2 table