Paper detail

Preference Dynamics Under Personalized Recommendations

Many projects (both practical and academic) have designed algorithms to match users to content they will enjoy under the assumption that user's preferences and opinions do not change with the content they see. Evidence suggests that individuals' preferences are directly shaped by what content they see -- radicalization, rabbit holes, polarization, and boredom are all example phenomena of preferences affected by content. Polarization in particular can occur even in ecosystems with "mass media," where no personalization takes place, as recently explored in a natural model of preference dynamics by~\citet{hkazla2019geometric} and~\citet{gaitonde2021polarization}. If all users' preferences are drawn towards content they already like, or are repelled from content they already dislike, uniform consumption of media leads to a population of heterogeneous preferences converging towards only two poles. In this work, we explore whether some phenomenon akin to polarization occurs when users receive \emph{personalized} content recommendations. We use a similar model of preference dynamics, where an individual's preferences move towards content the consume and enjoy, and away from content they consume and dislike. We show that standard user reward maximization is an almost trivial goal in such an environment (a large class of simple algorithms will achieve only constant regret). A more interesting objective, then, is to understand under what conditions a recommendation algorithm can ensure stationarity of user's preferences. We show how to design a content recommendations which can achieve approximate stationarity, under mild conditions on the set of available content, when a user's preferences are known, and how one can learn enough about a user's preferences to implement such a strategy even when user preferences are initially unknown.

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.