Causal Intervention for Leveraging Popularity Bias in Recommendation
Open accessAbstract
Recommender system usually faces popularity bias issues: from the data perspective, items exhibit uneven (usually long-tail) distribution on the interaction frequency; from the method perspective, collaborative filtering methods are prone to amplify the bias by over-recommending popular items. It is undoubtedly critical to consider popularity bias in recommender systems, and existing work mainly eliminates the bias effect with propensity-based unbiased learning or causal embeddings. However, we argue that not all biases in the data are bad, \ie some items demonstrate higher popularity because of their better intrinsic quality. Blindly pursuing unbiased learning may remove the beneficial patterns in the data, degrading the recommendation accuracy and user satisfaction. This work studies an unexplored problem in recommendation --- how to leverage popularity bias to improve the recommendation accuracy. The key lies in two aspects: how to remove the bad impact of popularity bias during training, and how to inject the desired popularity bias in the inference stage that generates top-K recommendations. This questions the causal mechanism of the recommendation generation process. Along this line, we find that item popularity plays the role ofconfounder between the exposed items and the observed interactions, causing the bad effect of bias amplification. To achieve our goal, we propose a new training and inference paradigm for recommendation named Popularity-bias Deconfounding and Adjusting (PDA). It removes the confounding popularity bias in model training and adjusts the recommendation score with desired popularity bias via causal intervention. We demonstrate the new paradigm on the latent factor model and perform extensive experiments on three real-world datasets from Kwai, Douban, and Tencent. Empirical studies validate that the deconfounded training is helpful to discover user real interests and the inference adjustment with popularity bias could further improve the recommendation accuracy. We release our code at https://github.com/zyang1580/PDA.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Popularity bias can act as a double-edged sword.
“Moreover, popularity bias can act as a double-edged sword [182, 183].”
From A Deep Dive into Fairness, Bias, Threats, and Privacy in Recommender Systems: Insights and Future Research (2024) · cites this paper as [182]
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946 · see citing works
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653 · see citing works
Disentangling User Interest and Conformity for Recommendation with Causal Embedding
Zheng, Y., Gao, C., Li, X., He, X., Li, Y., & Jin, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3442381.3449788 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Connection Between Popularity Bias, Calibration, and Fairness in Recommendation
Abdollahpouri, H., Mansoury, M., Burke, R., & Mobasher, B. (2020) · Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3383313.3418487 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bao, K., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, W., Feng, F., & He, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3604915.3608857 · Cited by 469 · see citing works
Self-citationPopularity Bias is not Always Evil: Disentangling Benign and Harmful Bias for Recommendation
Zhao, Z., Chen, J., Zhou, S., He, X., Cao, X., Zhang, F., & Wu, W. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3218994 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
“As recent work [2], here we simply use a uniform”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationRoy, F., Ding, X., Choo, K. K. R., & Zhou, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12651
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Feng, F., He, X., Wei, T., Song, C., Ling, G., & Zhang, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Tencent (China) (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-07-11
- Pages
- 11-20
- OpenAlex
- W3156939347
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 61.59
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (U19A2079, 61972372)
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020AAA0106000)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Keywords
- popularity bias, recommender systems, causal intervention, confounding, long-tail items, collaborative filtering, latent factor models, top-k recommendation, bias amplification, personal digital assistants
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