Joint Evaluation of Fairness and Relevance in Recommender Systems with Pareto Frontier

Fairness and relevance are two important aspects of recommender systems (RSs). Typically, they are evaluated either (i) separately by individual measures of fairness and relevance, or (ii) jointly using a single measure that accounts for fairness with respect to relevance. However, approach (i) often does not provide a reliable joint estimate of the goodness of the models, as it has two different best models: one for fairness and another for relevance. Approach (ii) is also problematic because these measures tend to be ad-hoc and do not relate well to traditional relevance measures, like NDCG. Motivated by this, we present a new approach for jointly evaluating fairness and relevance in RSs: Distance to Pareto Frontier (DPFR). Given some user-item interaction data, we compute their Pareto frontier for a pair of existing relevance and fairness measures, and then use the distance from the frontier as a measure of the jointly achievable fairness and relevance. Our approach is modular and intuitive as it can be computed with existing measures. Experiments with 4 RS models, 3 re-ranking strategies, and 6 datasets show that existing metrics have inconsistent associations with our Pareto-optimal solution, making DPFR a more robust and theoretically well-founded joint measure for assessing fairness and relevance. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/DPFR-recsys-evaluation

Are Representation Disentanglement and Interpretability Linked in Recommendation Models? A Critical Review and Reproducibility Study

Unsupervised learning of disentangled representations has been closely tied to enhancing the representation intepretability of Recommender Systems (RSs). This has been achieved by making the representation of individual features more distinctly separated, so that it is easier to attribute the contribution of features to the model's predictions. However, such advantages in interpretability and feature attribution have mainly been explored qualitatively. Moreover, the effect of disentanglement on the model's recommendation performance has been largely overlooked. In this work, we reproduce the recommendation performance, representation disentanglement and representation interpretability of five well-known recommendation models on four RS datasets. We quantify disentanglement and investigate the link of disentanglement with recommendation effectiveness and representation interpretability. While several existing work in RSs have proposed disentangled representations as a gateway to improved effectiveness and interpretability, our findings show that disentanglement is not necessarily related to effectiveness but is closely related to representation interpretability. Our code and results are publicly available at https://github.com/edervishaj/disentanglement-interpretability-recsys.

A Reality Check on Context Utilisation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) helps address the limitations of the parametric knowledge embedded within a language model (LM). However, investigations of how LMs utilise retrieved information of varying complexity in real-world scenarios have been limited to synthetic contexts. We introduce DRUID (Dataset of Retrieved Unreliable, Insufficient and Difficult-to-understand contexts) with real-world queries and contexts manually annotated for stance. The dataset is based on the prototypical task of automated claim verification, for which automated retrieval of real-world evidence is crucial. We compare DRUID to synthetic datasets (CounterFact, ConflictQA) and find that artificial datasets often fail to represent the complex and diverse real-world context settings. We show that synthetic datasets exaggerate context characteristics rare in real retrieved data, which leads to inflated context utilisation results, as measured by our novel ACU score. Moreover, while previous work has mainly focused on singleton context characteristics to explain context utilisation, correlations between singleton context properties and ACU on DRUID are surprisingly small compared to other properties related to context source. Overall, our work underscores the need for real-world aligned context utilisation studies to represent and improve performance in real-world RAG settings.

Normalized AOPC: Fixing Misleading Faithfulness Metrics for Feature Attribution Explainability

Deep neural network predictions are notoriously difficult to interpret. Feature attribution methods aim to explain these predictions by identifying the contribution of each input feature. Faithfulness, often evaluated using the area over the perturbation curve (AOPC), reflects feature attributions' accuracy in describing the internal mechanisms of deep neural networks. However, many studies rely on AOPC to compare faithfulness across different models, which we show can lead to false conclusions about models' faithfulness. Specifically, we find that AOPC is sensitive to variations in the model, resulting in unreliable cross-model comparisons. Moreover, AOPC scores are difficult to interpret in isolation without knowing the model-specific lower and upper limits. To address these issues, we propose a normalization approach, Normalized AOPC (NAOPC), enabling consistent cross-model evaluations and more meaningful interpretation of individual scores. Our experiments demonstrate that this normalization can radically change AOPC results, questioning the conclusions of earlier studies and offering a more robust framework for assessing feature attribution faithfulness.

From Internal Conflict to Contextual Adaptation of Language Models

Knowledge-intensive language understanding tasks require Language Models (LMs) to integrate relevant context, mitigating their inherent weaknesses, such as incomplete or outdated knowledge. Nevertheless, studies indicate that LMs often ignore the provided context as it can conflict with the pre-existing LM's memory learned during pre-training. Moreover, conflicting knowledge can already be present in the LM's parameters, termed intra-memory conflict. Existing works have studied the two types of knowledge conflicts only in isolation. We conjecture that the (degree of) intra-memory conflicts can in turn affect LM's handling of context-memory conflicts. To study this, we introduce the DYNAMICQA dataset, which includes facts with a temporal dynamic nature where a fact can change with a varying time frequency and disputable dynamic facts, which can change depending on the viewpoint. DYNAMICQA is the first to include real-world knowledge conflicts and provide context to study the link between the different types of knowledge conflicts. With the proposed dataset, we assess the use of uncertainty for measuring the intra-memory conflict and introduce a novel Coherent Persuasion (CP) score to evaluate the context's ability to sway LM's semantic output. Our extensive experiments reveal that static facts, which are unlikely to change, are more easily updated with additional context, relative to temporal and disputable facts.

An Unsupervised Approach to Achieve Supervised-Level Explainability in Healthcare Records

Electronic healthcare records are vital for patient safety as they document conditions, plans, and procedures in both free text and medical codes. Language models have significantly enhanced the processing of such records, streamlining workflows and reducing manual data entry, thereby saving healthcare providers significant resources. However, the black-box nature of these models often leaves healthcare professionals hesitant to trust them. State-of-the-art explainability methods increase model transparency but rely on human-annotated evidence spans, which are costly. In this study, we propose an approach to produce plausible and faithful explanations without needing such annotations. We demonstrate on the automated medical coding task that adversarial robustness training improves explanation plausibility and introduce AttInGrad, a new explanation method superior to previous ones. By combining both contributions in a fully unsupervised setup, we produce explanations of comparable quality, or better, to that of a supervised approach. We release our code and model weights.

Can We Trust Recommender System Fairness Evaluation? The Role of Fairness and Relevance

Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We empirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.

Dataset and Models for Item Recommendation Using Multi-Modal User Interactions

While recommender systems with multi-modal item representations (image, audio, and text), have been widely explored, learning recommendations from multi-modal user interactions (e.g., clicks and speech) remains an open problem. We study the case of multi-modal user interactions in a setting where users engage with a service provider through multiple channels (website and call center). In such cases, incomplete modalities naturally occur, since not all users interact through all the available channels. To address these challenges, we publish a real-world dataset that allows progress in this under-researched area. We further present and benchmark various methods for leveraging multi-modal user interactions for item recommendations, and propose a novel approach that specifically deals with missing modalities by mapping user interactions to a common feature space. Our analysis reveals important interactions between the different modalities and that a frequently occurring modality can enhance learning from a less frequent one.

Recommending Target Actions Outside Sessions in the Data-poor Insurance Domain

Providing personalized recommendations for insurance products is particularly challenging due to the intrinsic and distinctive features of the insurance domain. First, unlike more traditional domains like retail, movie etc., a large amount of user feedback is not available and the item catalog is smaller. Second, due to the higher complexity of products, the majority of users still prefer to complete their purchases over the phone instead of online. We present different recommender models to address such data scarcity in the insurance domain. We use recurrent neural networks with 3 different types of loss functions and architectures (cross-entropy, censored Weibull, attention). Our models cope with data scarcity by learning from multiple sessions and different types of user actions. Moreover, differently from previous session-based models, our models learn to predict a target action that does not happen within the session. Our models outperform state-of-the-art baselines on a real-world insurance dataset, with ca. 44K users, 16 items, 54K purchases and 117K sessions. Moreover, combining our models with demographic data boosts the performance. Analysis shows that considering multiple sessions and several types of actions are both beneficial for the models, and that our models are not unfair with respect to age, gender and income.

Evaluation Measures of Individual Item Fairness for Recommender Systems: A Critical Study

Fairness is an emerging and challenging topic in recommender systems. In recent years, various ways of evaluating and therefore improving fairness have emerged. In this study, we examine existing evaluation measures of fairness in recommender systems. Specifically, we focus solely on exposure-based fairness measures of individual items that aim to quantify the disparity in how individual items are recommended to users, separate from item relevance to users. We gather all such measures and we critically analyse their theoretical properties. We identify a series of limitations in each of them, which collectively may render the affected measures hard or impossible to interpret, to compute, or to use for comparing recommendations. We resolve these limitations by redefining or correcting the affected measures, or we argue why certain limitations cannot be resolved. We further perform a comprehensive empirical analysis of both the original and our corrected versions of these fairness measures, using real-world and synthetic datasets. Our analysis provides novel insights into the relationship between measures based on different fairness concepts, and different levels of measure sensitivity and strictness. We conclude with practical suggestions of which fairness measures should be used and when. Our code is publicly available. To our knowledge, this is the first critical comparison of individual item fairness measures in recommender systems.