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.

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.

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.

Modeling User Preferences via Brain-Computer Interfacing

Present Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI) technology allows inference and detection of cognitive and affective states, but fairly little has been done to study scenarios in which such information can facilitate new applications that rely on modeling human cognition. One state that can be quantified from various physiological signals is attention. Estimates of human attention can be used to reveal preferences and novel dimensions of user experience. Previous approaches have tackled these incredibly challenging tasks using a variety of behavioral signals, from dwell-time to click-through data, and computational models of visual correspondence to these behavioral signals. However, behavioral signals are only rough estimations of the real underlying attention and affective preferences of the users. Indeed, users may attend to some content simply because it is salient, but not because it is really interesting, or simply because it is outrageous. With this paper, we put forward a research agenda and example work using BCI to infer users' preferences, their attentional correlates towards visual content, and their associations with affective experience. Subsequently, we link these to relevant applications, such as information retrieval, personalized steering of generative models, and crowdsourcing population estimates of affective experiences.

Query Augmentation by Decoding Semantics from Brain Signals

Query augmentation is a crucial technique for refining semantically imprecise queries. Traditionally, query augmentation relies on extracting information from initially retrieved, potentially relevant documents. If the quality of the initially retrieved documents is low, then the effectiveness of query augmentation would be limited as well. We propose Brain-Aug, which enhances a query by incorporating semantic information decoded from brain signals. BrainAug generates the continuation of the original query with a prompt constructed with brain signal information and a ranking-oriented inference approach. Experimental results on fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) datasets show that Brain-Aug produces semantically more accurate queries, leading to improved document ranking performance. Such improvement brought by brain signals is particularly notable for ambiguous queries.

Language Generation from Human Brain Activities

Generating human language through non-invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) has the potential to unlock many applications, such as serving disabled patients and improving communication. Currently, however, generating language via BCIs has been previously successful only within a classification setup for selecting pre-generated sentence continuation candidates with the most likely cortical semantic representation. Inspired by recent research that revealed associations between the brain and the large computational language models, we propose a generative language BCI that utilizes the capacity of a large language model (LLM) jointly with a semantic brain decoder to directly generate language from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) input. The proposed model can generate coherent language sequences aligned with the semantic content of visual or auditory language stimuli perceived, without prior knowledge of any pre-generated candidates. We compare the language generated from the presented model with a random control, pre-generated language selection approach, and a standard LLM, which generates common coherent text solely based on the next word likelihood according to statistical language training data. The proposed model is found to generate language that is more aligned with semantic stimulus in response to which brain input is sampled. Our findings demonstrate the potential and feasibility of employing BCIs in direct language generation.

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.

Automated Medical Coding on MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV: A Critical Review and Replicability Study

Medical coding is the task of assigning medical codes to clinical free-text documentation. Healthcare professionals manually assign such codes to track patient diagnoses and treatments. Automated medical coding can considerably alleviate this administrative burden. In this paper, we reproduce, compare, and analyze state-of-the-art automated medical coding machine learning models. We show that several models underperform due to weak configurations, poorly sampled train-test splits, and insufficient evaluation. In previous work, the macro F1 score has been calculated sub-optimally, and our correction doubles it. We contribute a revised model comparison using stratified sampling and identical experimental setups, including hyperparameters and decision boundary tuning. We analyze prediction errors to validate and falsify assumptions of previous works. The analysis confirms that all models struggle with rare codes, while long documents only have a negligible impact. Finally, we present the first comprehensive results on the newly released MIMIC-IV dataset using the reproduced models. We release our code, model parameters, and new MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV training and evaluation pipelines to accommodate fair future comparisons.