Theresia Veronika Rampisela

Individual user fairness is commonly understood as treating similar users similarly. In Recommender Systems (RSs), several evaluation measures exist for quantifying individual user fairness. These measures evaluate fairness via either: (i) the disparity in RS effectiveness scores regardless of user similarity, or (ii) the disparity in items recommended to similar users regardless of item relevance. Both disparity in recommendation effectiveness and user similarity are very important in fairness, yet no existing individual user fairness measure simultaneously accounts for both. In brief, current user fairness evaluation measures implement a largely incomplete definition of fairness. To fill this gap, we present Pairwise User unFairness (PUF), a novel evaluation measure of individual user fairness that considers both effectiveness disparity and user similarity. PUF is the only measure that can express this important distinction. We empirically validate that PUF does this consistently across 4 datasets and 7 rankers, and robustly when varying user similarity or effectiveness. In contrast, all other measures are either almost insensitive to effectiveness disparity or completely insensitive to user similarity. We contribute the first RS evaluation measure to reliably capture both user similarity and effectiveness in individual user fairness. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/PUF-individual-user-fairness-recsys.

Fairness in recommender systems (RSs) is commonly categorised into group fairness and individual fairness. However, there is no established scientific understanding of the relationship between the two fairness types, as prior work on both types has used different evaluation measures or evaluation objectives for each fairness type, thereby not allowing for a proper comparison of the two. As a result, it is currently not known how increasing one type of fairness may affect the other. To fill this gap, we study the relationship of group and individual fairness through a comprehensive comparison of evaluation measures that can be used for both fairness types. Our experiments with 8 runs across 3 datasets show that recommendations that are highly fair for groups can be very unfair for individuals. Our finding is novel and useful for RS practitioners aiming to improve the fairness of their systems. Our code is available online.

Recommender Systems (RSs) aim to provide relevant items to users, with a recent emphasis on improving recommendation fairness. Quantifying fairness of the recommended items can be done with two types of evaluation measures: measures that are purely based on item exposure (exposure-based) and measures that account for both item exposure and item relevance (relevance-aware). While exposure-based measures have been thoroughly analysed, relevance-aware measures have not been examined in such detail yet. We gather all existing relevance-aware individual item fairness measures for RSs and study their theoretical properties. We find that all measures suffer from one or more limitations, which may cause issues in their computation, interpretability, or expressiveness. To address this, we correct the affected measures or explain why a limitation is unresolvable. Further, we empirically investigate the extent of the limitations on the measures and compare the original measures to our reformulations under common and extreme evaluation scenarios across real-world and synthetic data. Our experiments show that our reformulated measures successfully resolve the issues in the original measures. We conclude by providing practical guidelines on how to select measures for a range of use cases.

Fairness and relevance are two important aspects of recommender systems (RSs). Typically, they are evaluated either (i) separately by individual measures of fairness and relevance, or (ii) jointly using a single measure that accounts for fairness with respect to relevance. However, approach (i) often does not provide a reliable joint estimate of the goodness of the models, as it has two different best models: one for fairness and another for relevance. Approach (ii) is also problematic because these measures tend to be ad-hoc and do not relate well to traditional relevance measures, like NDCG. Motivated by this, we present a new approach for jointly evaluating fairness and relevance in RSs: Distance to Pareto Frontier (DPFR). Given some user-item interaction data, we compute their Pareto frontier for a pair of existing relevance and fairness measures, and then use the distance from the frontier as a measure of the jointly achievable fairness and relevance. Our approach is modular and intuitive as it can be computed with existing measures. Experiments with 4 RS models, 3 re-ranking strategies, and 6 datasets show that existing metrics have inconsistent associations with our Pareto-optimal solution, making DPFR a more robust and theoretically well-founded joint measure for assessing fairness and relevance. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/DPFR-recsys-evaluation

Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We eempirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.

Fairness is an emerging and challenging topic in recommender systems. In recent years, various ways of evaluating and therefore improving fairness have emerged. In this study, we examine existing evaluation measures of fairness in recommender systems. Specifically, we focus solely on exposure-based fairness measures of individual items that aim at quantifying the disparity in how individual items are recommended to users, separate from item relevance to users. We gather all such measures and we critically analyse their theoretical properties. We identify a series of limitations in each of them, which collectively may render the affected measures hard or impossible to interpret, to compute, or to use for comparing recommendations. We resolve these limitations by redefining or correcting the affected measures, or we argue why certain limitations cannot be resolved. We further perform a comprehensive empirical analysis of both the original and our corrected versions of these fairness measures, using real-world and synthetic datasets. Our analysis provides novel insights into the relationship between measures based on different fairness concepts, and different levels of measure sensitivity and strictness. We conclude with practical suggestions of which fairness measures should be used and when. Our code is publicly available. To our knowledge, this is the first critical comparison of individual item fairness measures in recommender systems.

Expertise retrieval covers the problems of expert and expertise finding. In academia, expert finding can be beneficial in finding a research partner or a potential thesis supervisor. This research finds the experts in the Faculty of Computer Science in Universitas Indonesia (Fasilkom UI) using the thesis abstract and metadata of Fasilkom UI students. The methods that are used to represent the query and expertise of the lecturers are the combination of word2vec and doc2vec, which are word embedding and document embedding, respectively. Both embeddings are able to model semantic information, which is necessary for solving the problem of vocabulary mismatch in search problems. Our result shows that representing the expertise query with word2vec leads to better performance than using doc2vec. In addition, we also found that generally, the performance of the embedding models is comparable to the standard retrieval model BM25 in retrieving experts using expertise queries in both Indonesian and English languages.

Expert finding in academic domain is useful for many purposes, such as: to find research collaborators, article reviewers, thesis advisors, thesis examiners, etc. This work examines the use of semantic information, i.e. word embedding and document embedding, for query expansion to enhance the effectiveness of expert finding system. This information is utilized to bridge the lexical gap between the query and the expertise evidence of the experts. This semantic-based query expansion approach is then combined with a BM25 retrieval method to find relevant experts to the given query. The results show that our methods consistently outperform the strong retrieval method BM25, the semantic-based retrieval, and query expansion using pseudo relevance feedback method according to all recall- and precision-based measures used in this work. This indicates the effectiveness of our methods in improving the number and the accuracy of relevant experts retrieved.