Cited by 22Recommender Systems and TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AIInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

User Bias in Beyond-Accuracy Measurement of Recommendation Algorithms

Wang, Ningxia, Chen, Li·2021·Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3460231.3474244

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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