skip to main content
10.1145/3213586.3226206acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using Image Fairness Representations in Diversity-Based Re-ranking for Recommendations

Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The trade-off between relevance and fairness in personalized recommendations has been explored in recent works, with the goal of minimizing learned discrimination towards certain demographics while still producing relevant results. We present a fairness-aware variation of the Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) re-ranking method which uses representations of demographic groups computed using a labeled dataset. This method is intended to incorporate fairness with respect to these demographic groups. We perform an experiment on a stock photo dataset and examine the trade-off between relevance and fairness against a well known baseline, MMR, by using human judgment to examine the results of the re-ranking when using different fractions of a labeled dataset, and by performing a quantitative analysis on the ranked results of a set of query images. We show that our proposed method can incorporate fairness in the ranked results while obtaining higher precision than the baseline, while our case study shows that even a limited amount of labeled data can be used to compute the representations to obtain fairness. This method can be used as a post-processing step for recommender systems and search.

References

  1. {n.d.}. Burst. https://burst.shopify.com/. Accessed: 2018-04--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Abolfazl Asudehy, HV Jagadishy, Julia Stoyanovichz, and Gautam Das. 2017. Designing Fair Ranking Schemes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09752 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 77--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Robin Burke, Nasim Sonboli, Masoud Mansoury, and Aldo Ordoñez-Gauger. 2017. Balanced Neighborhoods for Fairness-aware Collaborative Recommendation. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. 1998. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 335--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L Elisa Celis, Damian Straszak, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. 2017. Ranking with fairness constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06840 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Yoav Goldberg and Omer Levy. 2014. word2vec explained: Deriving mikolov et al.'s negative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yushi Jing, David Liu, Dmitry Kislyuk, Andrew Zhai, Jiajing Xu, Jeff Donahue, and Sarah Tavel. 2015. Visual search at pinterest. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1889--1898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2017. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08734 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Honglak Lee. 2010. Unsupervised feature learning via sparse hierarchical representations. Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Xia Ning and George Karypis. 2011. Slim: Sparse linear methods for top-n recommender systems. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on. IEEE, 497--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Zhou Ren, Hailin Jin, Zhe Lin, Chen Fang, and Alan Yuille. 2016. Joint image-text representation by gaussian visual-semantic embedding. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Multimedia Conference. ACM, 207--211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Scott Sanner, Shengbo Guo, Thore Graepel, Sadegh Kharazmi, and Sarvnaz Karimi. 2011. Diverse retrieval via greedy optimization of expected 1-call@ k in a latent subtopic relevance model. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 1977--1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Devashish Shankar, Sujay Narumanchi, HA Ananya, Pramod Kompalli, and Krishnendu Chaudhury. 2017. Deep learning based large scale visual recommendation and search for E-Commerce. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.02344 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of Exposure in Rankings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07281 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2818--2826.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Fan Yang, Ajinkya Kale, Yury Bubnov, Leon Stein, Qiaosong Wang, Hadi Kiapour, and Robinson Piramuthu. 2017. Visual search at ebay. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 2101--2110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ke Yang and Julia Stoyanovich. 2016. Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08559 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jun Yu, Sunil Mohan, Duangmanee Pew Putthividhya, and Weng-Keen Wong. 2014. Latent dirichlet allocation based diversified retrieval for e-commerce search. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 463--472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2017. Fair: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1569--1578. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Rich Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toni Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. 2013. Learning fair representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 325--333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using Image Fairness Representations in Diversity-Based Re-ranking for Recommendations

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          UMAP '18: Adjunct Publication of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
          July 2018
          349 pages
          ISBN:9781450357845
          DOI:10.1145/3213586
          • General Chairs:
          • Tanja Mitrovic,
          • Jie Zhang,
          • Program Chairs:
          • Li Chen,
          • David Chin

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 July 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          UMAP '18 Paper Acceptance Rate26of93submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate162of633submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader