Guaranteeing Accuracy and Fairness under Fluctuating User Traffic: A Bankruptcy-Inspired Re-ranking Approach
Pages 2991 - 3001
Abstract
Out of sustainable and economical considerations, two-sided recommendation platforms must satisfy the needs of both users and providers. Previous studies often show that the two sides' needs show different urgency: providers need a relatively long-term exposure demand while users want more short-term and accurate service. However, our empirical study reveals that previous methods for trading off fairness-accuracy often fail to guarantee long-term fairness and short-term accuracy simultaneously in real applications of fluctuating user traffic. Especially, when user traffic is low, the user experience often drops a lot. Our theoretical analysis also confirms that user traffic is a key factor in such a trade-off problem. How to guarantee accuracy and fairness under fluctuating user traffic remains a problem. Inspired by the bankruptcy problem in economics, we propose a novel fairness-aware re-ranking approach named BankFair. Intuitively, BankFair employs the Talmud rule to leverage periods of abundant user traffic to offset periods of user traffic scarcity, ensuring consistent user service at every period while upholding long-term fairness. Specifically, BankFair consists of two modules: (1) employing the Talmud rule to determine the required fairness degree under varying periods of user traffic; and (2) conducting an online re-ranking algorithm based on the fairness degree determined by the Talmud rule. Experiments on two real-world recommendation datasets show that BankFair outperforms all baselines regarding accuracy and provider fairness.
References
[1]
Angelos Antonopoulos. 2020. Bankruptcy problem in network sharing: Fundamentals, applications and challenges. IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol. 27, 4 (2020), 81--87.
[2]
Santiago Balseiro, Haihao Lu, and Vahab Mirrokni. 2021. Regularized online allocation problems: Fairness and beyond. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 630--639.
[3]
Amit Kumar Bardhan and Saad Ashraf. 2022. More buyers or more sellers: on marketing resource allocation strategies of competing two-sided platforms. Electronic Commerce Research (2022), 1--30.
[4]
Joeran Beel, Akiko Aizawa, Corinna Breitinger, and Bela Gipp. 2017. Mr. DLib: recommendations-as-a-service (RaaS) for academia. In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE, 1--2.
[5]
Omer Ben-Porat and Rotem Torkan. 2023. Learning with Exposure Constraints in Recommendation Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3456--3466.
[6]
Asia J Biega, Krishna P Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings. In The 41st international acm sigir conference on research & development in information retrieval. 405--414.
[7]
Arpita Biswas, Gourab K Patro, Niloy Ganguly, Krishna P Gummadi, and Abhijnan Chakraborty. 2021. Toward fair recommendation in two-sided platforms. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 16, 2 (2021), 1--34.
[8]
Stephen P Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex optimization. Cambridge university press.
[9]
Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 (2014).
[10]
Sierra Claridy. 2009. WHAT IS CUSTOMER SERVICE? Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 14, 1 (2009).
[11]
Maxime C Cohen and Renyu Zhang. 2022. Competition and coopetition for two-sided platforms. Production and Operations Management, Vol. 31, 5 (2022), 1997--2014.
[12]
Imma J Curiel, Michael Maschler, and Stef H Tijs. 1987. Bankruptcy games. Zeitschrift für operations research, Vol. 31 (1987), A143--A159.
[13]
Nir Dagan and Oscar Volij. 1993. The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach. Mathematical Social Sciences, Vol. 26, 3 (1993), 287--297.
[14]
Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu, Weijun He, Liang Yuan, An Min, and Qi Zhang. 2018. Bankruptcy to surplus: Sharing transboundary river basin's water under scarcity. Water Resources Management, Vol. 32 (2018), 2735--2751.
[15]
Jeffrey Donahue, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Sergio Guadarrama, Marcus Rohrbach, Subhashini Venugopalan, Kate Saenko, and Trevor Darrell. 2015. Long-term recurrent convolutional networks for visual recognition and description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2625--2634.
[16]
John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of machine learning research, Vol. 12, 7 (2011).
[17]
Thomas Eisenmann, Geoffrey Parker, Marshall W Van Alstyne, et al. 2006. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard business review, Vol. 84, 10 (2006), 92.
[18]
Sinan Ertemel and Rajnish Kumar. 2018. Proportional rules for state contingent claims. International Journal of Game Theory, Vol. 47 (2018), 229--246.
[19]
J Fleming. 2006. Why consistency is the key to profitable customer service. CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT, Vol. 14, 4 (2006), 10.
[20]
Chongming Gao, Shijun Li, Yuan Zhang, Jiawei Chen, Biao Li, Wenqiang Lei, Peng Jiang, and Xiangnan He. 2022. KuaiRand: An Unbiased Sequential Recommendation Dataset with Randomly Exposed Videos. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 3953--3957.
[21]
Yingqiang Ge, Shuyuan Xu, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Fei Sun, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2020. Learning personalized risk preferences for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 409--418.
[22]
Lei Guo, Hongzhi Yin, Qinyong Wang, Tong Chen, Alexander Zhou, and Nguyen Quoc Viet Hung. 2019. Streaming session-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 1569--1577.
[23]
Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval. 639--648.
[24]
Xiangnan He, Lizi Liao, Hanwang Zhang, Liqiang Nie, Xia Hu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Neural collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. 173--182.
[25]
Mengdian Hong, Ruoying Li, and Peiran Xie. 2021. Construction of Distribution System of Coronavirus Based on Talmud Bankruptcy Distribution. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Economic Management and Cultural Industry (ICEMCI 2021). Atlantis Press, 2089--2097.
[26]
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 2013. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. World Scientific, 99--127.
[27]
Botond KHoszegi and Matthew Rabin. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 121, 4 (2006), 1133--1165.
[28]
Jurek Leonhardt, Avishek Anand, and Megha Khosla. 2018. User fairness in recommender systems. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018. 101--102.
[29]
Yunqi Li, Hanxiong Chen, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2021. User-oriented fairness in recommendation. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 624--632.
[30]
Ramon Lopes, Rodrigo Alves, Antoine Ledent, Rodrygo LT Santos, and Marius Kloft. 2024. Recommendations with minimum exposure guarantees: A post-processing framework. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 236 (2024), 121164.
[31]
Alexander V Lotov and Kaisa Miettinen. 2008. Visualizing the Pareto frontier. In Multiobjective optimization: interactive and evolutionary approaches. Springer, 213--243.
[32]
Marco Morik, Ashudeep Singh, Jessica Hong, and Thorsten Joachims. 2020. Controlling fairness and bias in dynamic learning-to-rank. In Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 429--438.
[33]
Mohammadmehdi Naghiaei, Hossein A Rahmani, and Yashar Deldjoo. 2022. Cpfair: Personalized consumer and producer fairness re-ranking for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 770--779.
[34]
Barry O'Neill. 1982. A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Mathematical social sciences, Vol. 2, 4 (1982), 345--371.
[35]
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.
[36]
Bibek Paudel, Sandro Luck, and Abraham Bernstein. 2018. Loss aversion in recommender systems: Utilizing negative user preference to improve recommendation quality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.11422 (2018).
[37]
Karine Pires and Gwendal Simon. 2015. YouTube live and Twitch: a tour of user-generated live streaming systems. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM multimedia systems conference. 225--230.
[38]
Tao Qi, Fangzhao Wu, Chuhan Wu, Peijie Sun, Le Wu, Xiting Wang, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. 2022. Profairrec: Provider fairness-aware news recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1164--1173.
[39]
Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2012. BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618 (2012).
[40]
Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole. 2004. Two-sided markets: An overview. Institut d'Economie Industrielle working paper (2004), 1--44.
[41]
Reuven Y Rubinstein and Dirk P Kroese. 2016. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. John Wiley & Sons.
[42]
Özge Sürer, Robin Burke, and Edward C Malthouse. 2018. Multistakeholder recommendation with provider constraints. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 54--62.
[43]
Asep Suryahadi, Wenefrida Widyanti, Daniel Perwira, and Sudarno Sumarto. 2003. Minimum wage policy and its impact on employment in the urban formal sector. Bulletin of Indonesian economic studies, Vol. 39, 1 (2003), 29--50.
[44]
William Thomson. 2003. Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Mathematical social sciences, Vol. 45, 3 (2003), 249--297.
[45]
William Thomson. 2013. Game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: Recent advances. International Game Theory Review, Vol. 15, 03 (2013), 1340018.
[46]
Chenyang Wang, Yankai Liu, Yuanqing Yu, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang, Yiqun Liu, Haitao Zeng, Junlan Feng, and Chao Deng. 2023. Two-sided Calibration for Quality-aware Responsible Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 223--233.
[47]
Lequn Wang and Thorsten Joachims. 2023. Uncertainty Quantification for Fairness in Two-Stage Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 940--948.
[48]
Yifan Wang, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang, Yiqun Liu, and Shaoping Ma. 2023. A survey on the fairness of recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 41, 3 (2023), 1--43.
[49]
Dong Wei, Tao Zhou, Giulio Cimini, Pei Wu, Weiping Liu, and Yi-Cheng Zhang. 2011. Effective mechanism for social recommendation of news. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Vol. 390, 11 (2011), 2117--2126.
[50]
Yao Wu, Jian Cao, Guandong Xu, and Yudong Tan. 2021. Tfrom: A two-sided fairness-aware recommendation model for both customers and providers. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1013--1022.
[51]
Chen Xu, Sirui Chen, Jun Xu, Weiran Shen, Xiao Zhang, Gang Wang, and Zhenhua Dong. 2023. P-MMF: Provider Max-min Fairness Re-ranking in Recommender System. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3701--3711.
[52]
Chen Xu, Jun Xu, Yiming Ding, Xiao Zhang, and Qi Qi. 2024. FairSync: Ensuring Amortized Group Exposure in Distributed Recommendation Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10628 (2024).
[53]
Chen Xu, Xiaopeng Ye, Wenjie Wang, Liang Pang, Jun Xu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. A Taxation Perspective for Fair Re-ranking. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1494--1503.
[54]
Tao Yang, Zhichao Xu, and Qingyao Ai. 2023. Vertical Allocation-based Fair Exposure Amortizing in Ranking. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region. 234--244.
[55]
Valentina Zanardi and Licia Capra. 2011. Dynamic updating of online recommender systems via feed-forward controllers. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. 11--19.
[56]
Yang Zheng, Xuefeng Sang, Zhiwu Liu, Siqi Zhang, and Pan Liu. 2022. Water allocation management under scarcity: a bankruptcy approach. Water Resources Management, Vol. 36, 9 (2022), 2891--2912.
[57]
Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 35. 11106--11115.
Index Terms
- Guaranteeing Accuracy and Fairness under Fluctuating User Traffic: A Bankruptcy-Inspired Re-ranking Approach
Recommendations
P-MMF: Provider Max-min Fairness Re-ranking in Recommender System
WWW '23: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023In this paper, we address the issue of recommending fairly from the aspect of providers, which has become increasingly essential in multistakeholder recommender systems. Existing studies on provider fairness usually focused on designing proportion ...
LTP-MMF: Towards Long-term Provider Max-min Fairness Under Recommendation Feedback Loops
Multi-stakeholder recommender systems involve various roles, such as users, and providers. Previous work pointed out that max-min fairness (MMF) is a better metric to support weak providers. However, when considering MMF, the features or parameters of ...
The relation between user intervention and user satisfaction for information recommendation
SAC '12: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied ComputingAlthough recommender systems have come to give recommendations with high precision, users are not always satisfied with the recommendations. User satisfaction is apparently influenced by many other factors. We specifically examined user intervention as ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2024
5705 pages
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 21 October 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
Conference
CIKM '24
Sponsor:
CIKM '24: The 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
October 21 - 25, 2024
ID, Boise, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 19 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in