Paper detail

Analyzing the Effect of Sampling in GNNs on Individual Fairness

Graph neural network (GNN) based methods have saturated the field of recommender systems. The gains of these systems have been significant, showing the advantages of interpreting data through a network structure. However, despite the noticeable benefits of using graph structures in recommendation tasks, this representational form has also bred new challenges which exacerbate the complexity of mitigating algorithmic bias. When GNNs are integrated into downstream tasks, such as recommendation, bias mitigation can become even more difficult. Furthermore, the intractability of applying existing methods of fairness promotion to large, real world datasets places even more serious constraints on mitigation attempts. Our work sets out to fill in this gap by taking an existing method for promoting individual fairness on graphs and extending it to support mini-batch, or sub-sample based, training of a GNN, thus laying the groundwork for applying this method to a downstream recommendation task. We evaluate two popular GNN methods: Graph Convolutional Network (GCN), which trains on the entire graph, and GraphSAGE, which uses probabilistic random walks to create subgraphs for mini-batch training, and assess the effects of sub-sampling on individual fairness. We implement an individual fairness notion called \textit{REDRESS}, proposed by Dong et al., which uses rank optimization to learn individual fair node, or item, embeddings. We empirically show on two real world datasets that GraphSAGE is able to achieve, not just, comparable accuracy, but also, improved fairness as compared with the GCN model. These finding have consequential ramifications to individual fairness promotion, GNNs, and in downstream form, recommender systems, showing that mini-batch training facilitate individual fairness promotion by allowing for local nuance to guide the process of fairness promotion in representation learning.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.