A Multi-Objective Optimization Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Fairness-Aware Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, most online services are hosted on multi-stakeholder marketplaces, where consumers and producers may have different objectives. Conventional recommendation systems, however, mainly focus on maximizing consumers’ satisfaction by recommending the most relevant items to each individual. This may result in unfair exposure of items, thus jeopardizing producer benefits. Additionally, they do not care whether consumers from diverse demographic groups are equally satisfied. To address these limitations, we propose a multi-objective optimization framework for fairness-aware recommendation, Multi-FR , that adaptively balances accuracy and fairness for various stakeholders with Pareto optimality guarantee. We first propose four fairness constraints on consumers and producers. In order to train the whole framework in an end-to-end way, we utilize the smooth rank and stochastic ranking policy to make these fairness criteria differentiable and friendly to back-propagation. Then, we adopt the multiple gradient descent algorithm to generate a Pareto set of solutions, from which the most appropriate one is selected by the Least Misery Strategy. The experimental results demonstrate that Multi-FR largely improves recommendation fairness on multiple stakeholders over the state-of-the-art approaches while maintaining almost the same recommendation accuracy. The training efficiency study confirms our model’s ability to simultaneously optimize different fairness constraints for many stakeholders efficiently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".