Cited by 109Recommender Systems and TechniquesGame Theory and Voting SystemsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Fairness in package-to-group recommendations

Open access
Serbos, Dimitris, Qi, Shuyao, Mamoulis, Nikos, Pitoura, Evaggelia, Tsaparas, Panayiotis·2017·Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web

Abstract

Recommending packages of items to groups of users has several applications, including recommending vacation packages to groups of tourists, entertainment packages to groups of friends, or sets of courses to groups of students. In this paper, we focus on a novel aspect of package-to-group recommendations, that of fairness. Specifically, when we recommend a package to a group of people, we ask that this recommendation is fair in the sense that every group member is satisfied by a sufficient number of items in the package. We explore two definitions of fairness and show that for either definition the problem of finding the most fair package is NP-hard. We exploit the fact that our problem can be modeled as a coverage problem, and we propose greedy algorithms that find approximate solutions within reasonable time. In addition, we study two extensions of the problem, where we impose category or spatial constraints on the items to be included in the recommended packages. We evaluate the appropriateness of the fairness models and the performance of the proposed algorithms using real data from Yelp, and a user study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3038912.3052612

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17][17] M. Stettinger. Choicla: Towards domain-independent decision support for groups of users. In RecSys, pages 425--428, 2014. Digital Library Google Scholar
  2. [21][21] Q. Yuan, G. Cong, and C.-Y. Lin. Com: A generative model for group recommendation. In KDD, pages 163--172, 2014. Digital Library Google Scholar

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Serbos, D., Qi, S., Mamoulis, N., Pitoura, E., & Tsaparas, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web
Published
2017-04-03
Pages
371-379
OpenAlex
W2604961496
Cited by
107
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
6.30
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Hong Kong RGC (17205015)
  • European Union (LBSKQ, JMUGCS)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
group recommendation, fairness, covering problems, NP-hardness, greedy approximation algorithm, spatial constraints, user satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review