Paper detail

Popularity Bias in Recommendation: A Multi-stakeholder Perspective

Traditionally, especially in academic research in recommender systems, the focus has been solely on the satisfaction of the end-user. While user satisfaction has, indeed, been associated with the success of the business, it is not the only factor. In many recommendation domains, there are other stakeholders whose needs should be taken into account in the recommendation generation and evaluation. In this dissertation, I describe the notion of multi-stakeholder recommendation. In particular, I study one of the most important challenges in recommendation research, popularity bias, from a multi-stakeholder perspective since, as I show later in this dissertation, it impacts different stakeholders in a recommender system. Popularity bias is a well-known phenomenon in recommender systems where popular items are recommended even more frequently than their popularity would warrant, amplifying long-tail effects already present in many recommendation domains. Prior research has examined various approaches for mitigating popularity bias and enhancing the recommendation of long-tail items overall. The effectiveness of these approaches, however, has not been assessed in multi-stakeholder environments. In this dissertation, I study the impact of popularity bias in recommender systems from a multi-stakeholder perspective. In addition, I propose several algorithms each approaching the popularity bias mitigation from a different angle and compare their performances using several metrics with some other state-of-the-art approaches in the literature. I show that, often, the standard evaluation measures of popularity bias mitigation in the literature do not reflect the real picture of an algorithm's performance when it is evaluated from a multi-stakeholder point of view.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.