skip to main content
10.1145/3583780.3615181acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open Access

RecRec: Algorithmic Recourse for Recommender Systems

Published:21 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recommender systems play an essential role in the choices people make in domains such as entertainment, shopping, food, news, employment, and education. The machine learning models underlying these recommender systems are often enormously large and black-box in nature for users, content providers, and system developers alike. It is often crucial for all stakeholders to understand the model's rationale behind making certain predictions and recommendations. This is especially true for the content providers whose livelihoods depend on the recommender system. Drawing motivation from the practitioners' need, in this work, we propose a recourse framework for recommender systems, targeted towards the content providers. Algorithmic recourse in the recommendation setting is a set of actions that, if executed, would modify the recommendations (or ranking) of an item in the desired manner. A recourse suggests actions of the form: ''if a feature changes X to Y, then the ranking of that item for a set of users will change to X.'' Furthermore, we demonstrate that RecRec is highly effective in generating valid, sparse, and actionable recourses through an empirical evaluation of recommender systems trained on three real-world datasets. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to conceptualize and empirically test a generalized framework for generating recourses for recommender systems.

References

  1. Himan Abdollahpouri, Robin Burke, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2017. Recommender Systems as Multistakeholder Environments. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (Bratislava, Slovakia) (UMAP '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3079628.3079657Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Gediminas Adomavicius and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2005. Toward the Next Generation of Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17, 6 (jun 2005), 734--749.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Charu C Aggarwal. 2016. Content-based recommender systems. In Recommender systems. Springer, 139--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Thomas Blumensath and Mike E. Davies. 2009. Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 27, 3 (2009), 265--274. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063520309000384Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Jesús Bobadilla, Fernando Ortega, Antonio Hernando, and Abraham Gutiérrez. 2013. Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-based systems 46 (2013), 109-- 132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Eliane Léontine Bucher, Peter Kalum Schou, and Matthias Waldkirch. 2020. Pacifying the algorithm - Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy. Organization 28 (2020), 44 -- 67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Laurent Candillier, Kris Jack, Françoise Fessant, and Frank Meyer. 2009. State-ofthe- art recommender systems. In Collaborative and Social Information Retrieval and Access: Techniques for Improved User Modeling. IGI Global, 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. "I Always Assumed That I Wasn't Really That Close to [Her]": Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702556Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. F. Maxwell Harper and Joseph A. Konstan. 2015. The MovieLens Datasets: History and Context. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 5, 4, Article 19 (Dec. 2015), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2827872Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Maya Holikatti, Shagun Jhaver, and Neha Kumar. 2019. Learning to Airbnb by Engaging in Online Communities of Practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (2019), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359330Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi and Will Sutherland. 2019. Algorithmic Management and Algorithmic Competencies: Understanding and Appropriating Algorithms in Gig Work. In Information in Contemporary Society. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 578--589.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shagun Jhaver, Yoni Karpfen, and Judd Antin. 2018. Algorithmic Anxiety and Coping Strategies of Airbnb Hosts. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173995Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Min Kyung Lee. 2018. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society 5 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pasquale Lops, Marco De Gemmis, and Giovanni Semeraro. 2011. Contentbased recommender systems: State of the art and trends. Recommender systems handbook (2011), 73--105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence 267 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.artint.2018.07.007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatim A. Rahman. 2021. The Invisible Cage: Workers' Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly 66, 4 (2021), 945--988. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211010118Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Lubna Razaq, Beth Kolko, and Gary Hsieh. 2022. Making crafting visible while rendering labor invisible on the Etsy platform. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (Virtual Event, USA) (DIS '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunal Shah, Akshaykumar Salunke, Saurabh Dongare, and Kisandas Antala. 2017. Recommender systems: An overviewof different approaches to recommendations. In 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication Systems (ICIIECS). IEEE, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Guy Shani and Asela Gunawardana. 2011. Evaluating Recommendation Systems. Springer US, Boston, MA, 257--297. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0--387--85820--3_8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Özge Sürer, Robin Burke, and Edward C. Malthouse. 2018. Multistakeholder Recommendation with Provider Constraints. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (RecSys '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240323.3240350Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Poonam B Thorat, RM Goudar, and Sunita Barve. 2015. Survey on collaborative filtering, content-based filtering and hybrid recommendation system. International Journal of Computer Applications 110, 4 (2015), 31--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Tianchi. 2018. Ad Display/Click Data on Taobao.com. https://tianchi.aliyun.com/ dataset/dataDetail?dataId=56Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Sahil Verma, John Dickerson, and Keegan Hines. 2020. Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning: A Review. arXiv:2010.10596 [cs.LG]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2018. Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. arXiv:1711.00399 [cs.AI]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mengting Wan and Julian J. McAuley. 2018. Item recommendation on monotonic behavior chains. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 2--7, 2018. ACM, 86--94. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240323.3240369Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mengting Wan, Rishabh Misra, Ndapa Nakashole, and Julian J. McAuley. 2019. Fine-Grained Spoiler Detection from Large-Scale Review Corpora. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2605--2610. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p19--1248Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yongfeng Zhang and Xu Chen. 2020. Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectives. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 14 (2020), 1--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Yong Zheng. 2019. Multi-Stakeholder Recommendations: Case Studies, Methods and Challenges (RecSys '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3346951Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. RecRec: Algorithmic Recourse for Recommender Systems

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)200
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)46

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader