Cited by 184Recommender Systems and TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AIGame Theory and Voting Systems

The Connection Between Popularity Bias, Calibration, and Fairness in Recommendation

Open access
Abdollahpouri, Himan, Mansoury, Masoud, Burke, Robin, Mobasher, Bamshad·2020·Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

Abstract

Recently there has been a growing interest in fairness-aware recommender systems including fairness in providing consistent performance across different users or groups of users. A recommender system could be considered unfair if the recommendations do not fairly represent the tastes of a certain group of users while other groups receive recommendations that are consistent with their preferences. In this paper, we use a metric called miscalibration for measuring how a recommendation algorithm is responsive to users’ true preferences and we consider how various algorithms may result in different degrees of miscalibration for different users. In particular, we conjecture that popularity bias which is a well-known phenomenon in recommendation is one important factor leading to miscalibration in recommendation. Our experimental results using two real-world datasets show that there is a connection between how different user groups are affected by algorithmic popularity bias and their level of interest in popular items. Moreover, we show that the more a group is affected by the algorithmic popularity bias, the more their recommendations are miscalibrated.

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 · 10.1145/3383313.3418487

Cites

26 of 26 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current recommendation systems appear to disproportionately amplify high-popularity accounts, creating inequality in exposure that may result in less personalized and miscalibrated recommendations for certain user groups.

    “Current recommendation systems appear to disproportionately amplify high-popularity accounts, creating inequality in exposure that may result in less personalized and miscalibrated recommendations for certain user groups [1].”

    From Auditing Political Exposure Bias: Algorithmic Amplification on Twitter/X During the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election (2025) · cites this paper as [1]

    Section 3.2 (page not supplied) says algorithms often amplify popularity bias by overrecommending popular items, including to users interested in niche items. Section 5.1 links this bias to unequal effects and miscalibration across user groups. The paper discusses items, not high-popularity accounts, and does not establish unequal exposure for accounts. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Engin Bozdag. 2013. Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and information technology 15, 3 (2013), 209-227.
  2. Erik Brynjolfsson, Yu Jeffrey Hu, and Michael D Smith. 2006. From niches to riches: Anatomy of the long tail. Sloan Management Review (2006), 67-71.
  3. Masoud Mansoury, Himan Abdollahpouri, Jessie Smith, Arman Dehpanah, Mykola Pechenizkiy, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2020. Investigating Potential Factors Associated with Gender Discrimination in Collaborative Recommender Systems. In The Thirty-Third International Flairs Conference.
  4. Arvind Narayanan. 2018. Translation tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics. In Proc. Conf. Fairness Accountability Transp., New York, USA, Vol. 1170.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdollahpouri, H., Mansoury, M., Burke, R., & Mobasher, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • DePaul University (US)
Venue
Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-09-22
Pages
726-731
OpenAlex
W3080925373
Cited by
183
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17
FWCI
14.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National science foundation (1911025)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
popularity bias, calibration error, recommendation fairness, recommender systems, user preference representation

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