Antitrust, Amazon, and Algorithmic Auditing

In digital markets, antitrust law and special regulations aim to ensure that markets remain competitive despite the dominating role that digital platforms play today in everyone's life. Unlike traditional markets, market participant behavior is easily observable in these markets. We present a series of empirical investigations into the extent to which Amazon engages in practices that are typically described as self-preferencing. We discuss how the computer science tools used in this paper can be used in a regulatory environment that is based on algorithmic auditing and requires regulating digital markets at scale.

FaiRIR: Mitigating Exposure Bias from Related Item Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms

Related Item Recommendations (RIRs) are ubiquitous in most online platforms today, including e-commerce and content streaming sites. These recommendations not only help users compare items related to a given item, but also play a major role in bringing traffic to individual items, thus deciding the exposure that different items receive. With a growing number of people depending on such platforms to earn their livelihood, it is important to understand whether different items are receiving their desired exposure. To this end, our experiments on multiple real-world RIR datasets reveal that the existing RIR algorithms often result in very skewed exposure distribution of items, and the quality of items is not a plausible explanation for such skew in exposure. To mitigate this exposure bias, we introduce multiple flexible interventions (FaiRIR) in the RIR pipeline. We instantiate these mechanisms with two well-known algorithms for constructing related item recommendations -- rating-SVD and item2vec -- and show on real-world data that our mechanisms allow for a fine-grained control on the exposure distribution, often at a small or no cost in terms of recommendation quality, measured in terms of relatedness and user satisfaction.

Alexa, in you, I trust! Fairness and Interpretability Issues in E-commerce Search through Smart Speakers

In traditional (desktop) e-commerce search, a customer issues a specific query and the system returns a ranked list of products in order of relevance to the query. An increasingly popular alternative in e-commerce search is to issue a voice-query to a smart speaker (e.g., Amazon Echo) powered by a voice assistant (VA, e.g., Alexa). In this situation, the VA usually spells out the details of only one product, an explanation citing the reason for its selection, and a default action of adding the product to the customer's cart. This reduced autonomy of the customer in the choice of a product during voice-search makes it necessary for a VA to be far more responsible and trustworthy in its explanation and default action. In this paper, we ask whether the explanation presented for a product selection by the Alexa VA installed on an Amazon Echo device is consistent with human understanding as well as with the observations on other traditional mediums (e.g., desktop ecommerce search). Through a user survey, we find that in 81% cases the interpretation of 'a top result' by the users is different from that of Alexa. While investigating for the fairness of the default action, we observe that over a set of as many as 1000 queries, in nearly 68% cases, there exist one or more products which are more relevant (as per Amazon's own desktop search results) than the product chosen by Alexa. Finally, we conducted a survey over 30 queries for which the Alexa-selected product was different from the top desktop search result, and observed that in nearly 73% cases, the participants preferred the top desktop search result as opposed to the product chosen by Alexa. Our results raise several concerns and necessitates more discussions around the related fairness and interpretability issues of VAs for e-commerce search.

Two-Face: Adversarial Audit of Commercial Face Recognition Systems

Computer vision applications like automated face detection are used for a variety of purposes ranging from unlocking smart devices to tracking potential persons of interest for surveillance. Audits of these applications have revealed that they tend to be biased against minority groups which result in unfair and concerning societal and political outcomes. Despite multiple studies over time, these biases have not been mitigated completely and have in fact increased for certain tasks like age prediction. While such systems are audited over benchmark datasets, it becomes necessary to evaluate their robustness for adversarial inputs. In this work, we perform an extensive adversarial audit on multiple systems and datasets, making a number of concerning observations - there has been a drop in accuracy for some tasks on CELEBSET dataset since a previous audit. While there still exists a bias in accuracy against individuals from minority groups for multiple datasets, a more worrying observation is that these biases tend to get exorbitantly pronounced with adversarial inputs toward the minority group. We conclude with a discussion on the broader societal impacts in light of these observations and a few suggestions on how to collectively deal with this issue.

Fairness for Whom? Understanding the Reader's Perception of Fairness in Text Summarization

With the surge in user-generated textual information, there has been a recent increase in the use of summarization algorithms for providing an overview of the extensive content. Traditional metrics for evaluation of these algorithms (e.g. ROUGE scores) rely on matching algorithmic summaries to human-generated ones. However, it has been shown that when the textual contents are heterogeneous, e.g., when they come from different socially salient groups, most existing summarization algorithms represent the social groups very differently compared to their distribution in the original data. To mitigate such adverse impacts, some fairness-preserving summarization algorithms have also been proposed. All of these studies have considered normative notions of fairness from the perspective of writers of the contents, neglecting the readers' perceptions of the underlying fairness notions. To bridge this gap, in this work, we study the interplay between the fairness notions and how readers perceive them in textual summaries. Through our experiments, we show that reader's perception of fairness is often context-sensitive. Moreover, standard ROUGE evaluation metrics are unable to quantify the perceived (un)fairness of the summaries. To this end, we propose a human-in-the-loop metric and an automated graph-based methodology to quantify the perceived bias in textual summaries. We demonstrate their utility by quantifying the (un)fairness of several summaries of heterogeneous socio-political microblog datasets.

When the Umpire is also a Player: Bias in Private Label Product Recommendations on E-commerce Marketplaces

Algorithmic recommendations mediate interactions between millions of customers and products (in turn, their producers and sellers) on large e-commerce marketplaces like Amazon. In recent years, the producers and sellers have raised concerns about the fairness of black-box recommendation algorithms deployed on these marketplaces. Many complaints are centered around marketplaces biasing the algorithms to preferentially favor their own `private label' products over competitors. These concerns are exacerbated as marketplaces increasingly de-emphasize or replace `organic' recommendations with ad-driven `sponsored' recommendations, which include their own private labels. While these concerns have been covered in popular press and have spawned regulatory investigations, to our knowledge, there has not been any public audit of these marketplace algorithms. In this study, we bridge this gap by performing an end-to-end systematic audit of related item recommendations on Amazon. We propose a network-centric framework to quantify and compare the biases across organic and sponsored related item recommendations. Along a number of our proposed bias measures, we find that the sponsored recommendations are significantly more biased toward Amazon private label products compared to organic recommendations. While our findings are primarily interesting to producers and sellers on Amazon, our proposed bias measures are generally useful for measuring link formation bias in any social or content networks.

Image Clustering without Ground Truth

Cluster analysis has become one of the most exercised research areas over the past few decades in computer science. As a consequence, numerous clustering algorithms have already been developed to find appropriate partitions of a set of objects. Given multiple such clustering solutions, it is a challenging task to obtain an ensemble of these solutions. This becomes more challenging when the ground truth about the number of clusters is unavailable. In this paper, we introduce a crowd-powered model to collect solutions of image clustering from the general crowd and pose it as a clustering ensemble problem with variable number of clusters. The varying number of clusters basically reflects the crowd workers' perspective toward a particular set of objects. We allow a set of crowd workers to independently cluster the images as per their perceptions. We address the problem by finding out centroid of the clusters using an appropriate distance measure and prioritize the likelihood of similarity of the individual cluster sets. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated by applying it on multiple artificial datasets obtained from crowd.