Cited by 50Recommender Systems and TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Unlearning Protected User Attributes in Recommendations with Adversarial Training

Open access
Ganhör, Christian, Penz, David, Rekabsaz, Navid, Lesota, Oleg, Schedl, Markus·2022·Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

Abstract

Collaborative filtering algorithms capture underlying consumption patterns, including the ones specific to particular demographics or protected information of users, e.g., gender, race, and location. These encoded biases can influence the decision of a recommendation system (RS) towards further separation of the contents provided to various demographic subgroups, and raise privacy concerns regarding the disclosure of users' protected attributes. In this work, we investigate the possibility and challenges of removing specific protected information of users from the learned interaction representations of a RS algorithm, while maintaining its effectiveness. Specifically, we incorporate adversarial training into the state-of-the-art MultVAE architecture, resulting in a novel model, Adversarial Variational Auto-Encoder with Multinomial Likelihood (Adv-MultVAE), which aims at removing the implicit information of protected attributes while preserving recommendation performance. We conduct experiments on the MovieLens-1M and LFM-2b-DemoBias datasets, and evaluate the effectiveness of the bias mitigation method based on the inability of external attackers in revealing the users' gender information from the model. Comparing with baseline MultVAE, the results show that Adv-MultVAE, with marginal deterioration in performance (w.r.t. NDCG and recall), largely mitigates inherent biases in the model on both datasets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3477495.3531820

Cites

36 of 36 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
Ganhör, C., Penz, D., Rekabsaz, N., Lesota, O., & Schedl, M.
Affiliations
Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
Venue
Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-07-06
Pages
2142-2147
OpenAlex
W4281885833
Cited by
47
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3
FWCI
9.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (P33526,DFH-23)
  • State of Upper Austria and the Federal Ministry of Education, Science, and Research (LIT-2020-9-SEE-113,LIT-2021-YOU-215)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
bias mitigation, recommender systems, collaborative filtering, adversarial training, variational autoencoder, gender bias, demographic bias, privacy, adversarial attacks

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