界定公平目标和确定推荐系统的公平指标:实践者的观点

Jessie J. Smith, Lex Beattie, H. Cramer
{"title":"界定公平目标和确定推荐系统的公平指标:实践者的观点","authors":"Jessie J. Smith, Lex Beattie, H. Cramer","doi":"10.1145/3543507.3583204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring and assessing the impact and “fairness’’ of recommendation algorithms is central to responsible recommendation efforts. However, the complexity of fairness definitions and the proliferation of fairness metrics in research literature have led to a complex decision-making space. This environment makes it challenging for practitioners to operationalize and pick metrics that work within their unique context. This suggests that practitioners require more decision-making support, but it is not clear what type of support would be beneficial. We conducted a literature review of 24 papers to gather metrics introduced by the research community for measuring fairness in recommendation and ranking systems. We organized these metrics into a ‘decision-tree style’ support framework designed to help practitioners scope fairness objectives and identify fairness metrics relevant to their recommendation domain and application context. To explore the feasibility of this approach, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews using this framework to assess which challenges practitioners may face when scoping fairness objectives and metrics for their system, and which further support may be needed beyond such tools.","PeriodicalId":296351,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping Fairness Objectives and Identifying Fairness Metrics for Recommender Systems: The Practitioners’ Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Jessie J. Smith, Lex Beattie, H. Cramer\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3543507.3583204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Measuring and assessing the impact and “fairness’’ of recommendation algorithms is central to responsible recommendation efforts. However, the complexity of fairness definitions and the proliferation of fairness metrics in research literature have led to a complex decision-making space. This environment makes it challenging for practitioners to operationalize and pick metrics that work within their unique context. This suggests that practitioners require more decision-making support, but it is not clear what type of support would be beneficial. We conducted a literature review of 24 papers to gather metrics introduced by the research community for measuring fairness in recommendation and ranking systems. We organized these metrics into a ‘decision-tree style’ support framework designed to help practitioners scope fairness objectives and identify fairness metrics relevant to their recommendation domain and application context. To explore the feasibility of this approach, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews using this framework to assess which challenges practitioners may face when scoping fairness objectives and metrics for their system, and which further support may be needed beyond such tools.\",\"PeriodicalId\":296351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

衡量和评估推荐算法的影响和“公平性”是负责任的推荐工作的核心。然而,公平定义的复杂性和研究文献中公平指标的激增导致了一个复杂的决策空间。这种环境使得从业者在其独特的上下文中操作和选择工作的度量具有挑战性。这表明从业者需要更多的决策支持,但是不清楚哪种类型的支持是有益的。我们对24篇论文进行了文献综述,以收集研究界引入的衡量推荐和排名系统公平性的指标。我们将这些指标组织成一个“决策树风格”的支持框架,旨在帮助从业者确定公平目标,并确定与他们的推荐领域和应用程序上下文相关的公平指标。为了探索这种方法的可行性,我们使用该框架进行了15次半结构化访谈,以评估从业者在为其系统确定公平目标和度量范围时可能面临的挑战,以及在这些工具之外可能需要哪些进一步的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoping Fairness Objectives and Identifying Fairness Metrics for Recommender Systems: The Practitioners’ Perspective
Measuring and assessing the impact and “fairness’’ of recommendation algorithms is central to responsible recommendation efforts. However, the complexity of fairness definitions and the proliferation of fairness metrics in research literature have led to a complex decision-making space. This environment makes it challenging for practitioners to operationalize and pick metrics that work within their unique context. This suggests that practitioners require more decision-making support, but it is not clear what type of support would be beneficial. We conducted a literature review of 24 papers to gather metrics introduced by the research community for measuring fairness in recommendation and ranking systems. We organized these metrics into a ‘decision-tree style’ support framework designed to help practitioners scope fairness objectives and identify fairness metrics relevant to their recommendation domain and application context. To explore the feasibility of this approach, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews using this framework to assess which challenges practitioners may face when scoping fairness objectives and metrics for their system, and which further support may be needed beyond such tools.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信