Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This thesis analyzes the robustness and limitations of existing offline evaluation measures for fairness in recommender systems, focusing on interpretability, expressiveness, and applicability across different fairness notions and granularities. It identifies flaws in existing measures through theoretical and empirical analysis, such as sensitivity to specific model outputs and potential for undefined values. To address these limitations, the work proposes novel evaluation approaches and measures, ultimately providing guidelines for appropriate measure selection in practical scenarios.
Many recommender system fairness metrics are flawed, producing scores that are uninterpretable, inexpressive, or even incalculable in common scenarios.
The evaluation of recommender system fairness has become increasingly important, especially with recent legislation that emphasises the development of fair and responsible artificial intelligence. This has led to the emergence of various fairness evaluation measures, which quantify fairness based on different definitions. However, many of such measures are simply proposed and used without further analysis on their robustness. As a result, there is insufficient understanding and awareness of the measures'limitations. Among other issues, it is not known what kind of model outputs produce the (un)fairest score, how the measure scores are empirically distributed, and whether there are cases where the measures cannot be computed (e.g., due to division by zero). These issues cause difficulty in interpreting the measure scores and confusion on which measure(s) should be used for a specific case. This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures. We investigate a wide range of offline evaluation measures for different fairness notions, divided based on the evaluation subjects (users and items) and for different evaluation granularities (groups of subjects and individual subjects). Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability. Secondly, we contribute novel evaluation approaches and measures that overcome these limitations. Finally, considering the measures'limitations, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios. Overall, this thesis contributes to advancing the state-of-the-art offline evaluation of fairness in recommender systems.
