User Bias in Beyond-Accuracy Measurement of Recommendation Algorithms
Abstract
There are various biases in recommender systems. Recognizing biases, as well as unfairness caused by problematic biases, is the first step of system optimization. Related studies on algorithmic biases are mainly from the perspective of either items or users. For the latter (we call it “algorithmic user bias”), existing works have considered algorithms’ accuracy performances measured by accuracy metrics like RMSE. However, algorithmic user biases in beyond-accuracy measurements have rarely been studied, even though beyond-accuracy oriented recommendation algorithms have been increasingly investigated, with the purpose of breaking through the personalization limits of traditional accuracy-oriented algorithms (such as the typical “filter bubble” phenomenon). To fill in the research gap, in this work, we employ a large-scale survey dataset collected from a commercial platform, in which more than 11,000 users’ ratings on the recommendation’s 5 performance objectives (i.e., relevance, diversity, novelty, unexpectedness, and serendipity) and 8 kinds of user characteristics (i.e., gender, age, big-5 personality traits, and curiosity) are available. We study user biases of four algorithms (i.e., HOT, Rel-CF, Nov-CF, and Ser-CF) in terms of those five measurements between user groups of the eight user characteristics. We further look into users’ behavior patterns like the preference of using more positive ratings, in order to interpret the observed biases. Finally, based on the observed algorithmic user bias and users’ behavior patterns, we analyze the possible factors leading to the biases and recognize problematic biases that may lead to unfairness.
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?
Even after eliminating all bias from the data, an algorithm's results may still vary across different data groups due to algorithmic bias.
“Even after eliminating all bias from the data, an algorithm's results may still vary across different data groups due to algorithmic bias [19, 82].”
From A Deep Dive into Fairness, Bias, Threats, and Privacy in Recommender Systems: Insights and Future Research (2024) · cites this paper as [82]
There is a correlation between popularity and gender biases, and personality bias is also positively correlated with position bias.
“There is also a correlation between popularity and gender biases [57, 82], and personality bias is also positively correlated with position bias.”
From A Deep Dive into Fairness, Bias, Threats, and Privacy in Recommender Systems: Insights and Future Research (2024) · cites this paper as [82]
Cites
The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Loewenstein, G. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 · Cited by 2,738 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Curiosity, as a personal attribute, refers to the desire to know or learn something new [27].”
BackgroundSocial Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763 · cited 1× · see citing works
“about online shopping users in China [9, 37], which suggest that little population bias [38] exists in this dataset, and thus the biases observed in subsequent analysis can represent the actual situation of users’ evaluation of the algorithms.”
BackgroundThe curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011 · Cited by 674 · cited 4× · see citing works
“…each participant was also asked to fill out some demographic information (i.e., gender and age) and answer two psychological inventories (i.e., Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) [14] for the big-five personality traits, and Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II (CEI-II) [21] for curiosity).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBaeza-Yates, R. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3209581 · Cited by 432 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It may affect the recommender system’s performances even if there are no biases from users and/or developers nor biases from the process of collecting and processing data [5].”
BackgroundPersonality Bias of Music Recommendation Algorithms
Melchiorre, A. B., Zangerle, E., & Schedl, M. (2020) · Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3383313.3412223 · Cited by 48
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unlearning Protected User Attributes in Recommendations with Adversarial Training
Ganhör, C., Penz, D., Rekabsaz, N., Lesota, O., & Schedl, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3477495.3531820 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Roy, F., Ding, X., Choo, K. K. R., & Zhou, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12651
- Authors
- Wang, N., & Chen, L.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
- Venue
- Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-09-13
- Pages
- 133-142
- OpenAlex
- W3199814031
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RGC/HKBU12201620)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- recommender systems, filter bubbles, personalization, diversity, novelty, serendipity, unexpectedness, user characteristics, Big Five personality traits, curiosity, rating behavior, collaborative filtering
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