Based on the success of recommender systems in e-commerce, there is growing interest in their use in matching markets (e.g., labor). While this holds potential for improving market fluidity and fairness, we show in this paper that naively applying existing recommender systems to matching markets is sub-optimal. Considering the standard process where candidates apply and then get evaluated by employers, we present a new recommendation framework to model this interaction mechanism and propose efficient algorithms for computing personalized rankings in this setting. We show that the optimal rankings need to not only account for the potentially divergent preferences of candidates and employers, but they also need to account for capacity constraints. This makes conventional ranking systems that merely rank by some local score (e.g., one-sided or reciprocal relevance) highly sub-optimal -- not only for an individual user, but also for societal goals (e.g., low unemployment). To address this shortcoming, we propose the first method for jointly optimizing the rankings for all candidates in the market to explicitly maximize social welfare. In addition to the theoretical derivation, we evaluate the method both on simulated environments and on data from a real-world networking-recommendation system that we built and fielded at a large computer science conference.
Contextual bandit algorithms have become widely used for recommendation in online systems (e.g. marketplaces, music streaming, news), where they now wield substantial influence on which items get exposed to the users. This raises questions of fairness to the items -- and to the sellers, artists, and writers that benefit from this exposure. We argue that the conventional bandit formulation can lead to an undesirable and unfair winner-takes-all allocation of exposure. To remedy this problem, we propose a new bandit objective that guarantees merit-based fairness of exposure to the items while optimizing utility to the users. We formulate fairness regret and reward regret in this setting, and present algorithms for both stochastic multi-armed bandits and stochastic linear bandits. We prove that the algorithms achieve sub-linear fairness regret and reward regret. Beyond the theoretical analysis, we also provide empirical evidence that these algorithms can fairly allocate exposure to different arms effectively.
Ranking items by their probability of relevance has long been the goal of conventional ranking systems. While this maximizes traditional criteria of ranking performance, there is a growing understanding that it is an oversimplification in online platforms that serve not only a diverse user population, but also the producers of the items. In particular, ranking algorithms are expected to be fair in how they serve all groups of users -- not just the majority group -- and they also need to be fair in how they divide exposure among the items. These fairness considerations can partially be met by adding diversity to the rankings, as done in several recent works, but we show in this paper that user fairness, item fairness and diversity are fundamentally different concepts. In particular, we find that algorithms that consider only one of the three desiderata can fail to satisfy and even harm the other two. To overcome this shortcoming, we present the first ranking algorithm that explicitly enforces all three desiderata. The algorithm optimizes user and item fairness as a convex optimization problem which can be solved optimally. From its solution, a ranking policy can be derived via a new Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition algorithm that optimizes diversity. Beyond the theoretical analysis, we provide a comprehensive empirical evaluation on a new benchmark dataset to show the effectiveness of the proposed ranking algorithm on controlling the three desiderata and the interplay between them.
We explore the feasibility of using triplet neural networks to embed songs based on content-based music similarity. Our network is trained using triplets of songs such that two songs by the same artist are embedded closer to one another than to a third song by a different artist. We compare two models that are trained using different ways of picking this third song: at random vs. based on shared genre labels. Our experiments are conducted using songs from the Free Music Archive and use standard audio features. The initial results show that shallow Siamese networks can be used to embed music for a simple artist retrieval task.
Learning effective contextual-bandit policies from past actions of a deployed system is highly desirable in many settings (e.g. voice assistants, recommendation, search), since it enables the reuse of large amounts of log data. State-of-the-art methods for such off-policy learning, however, are based on inverse propensity score (IPS) weighting. A key theoretical requirement of IPS weighting is that the policy that logged the data has "full support", which typically translates into requiring non-zero probability for any action in any context. Unfortunately, many real-world systems produce support deficient data, especially when the action space is large, and we show how existing methods can fail catastrophically. To overcome this gap between theory and applications, we identify three approaches that provide various guarantees for IPS-based learning despite the inherent limitations of support-deficient data: restricting the action space, reward extrapolation, and restricting the policy space. We systematically analyze the statistical and computational properties of these three approaches, and we empirically evaluate their effectiveness. In addition to providing the first systematic analysis of support-deficiency in contextual-bandit learning, we conclude with recommendations that provide practical guidance.
Rankings are the primary interface through which many online platforms match users to items (e.g. news, products, music, video). In these two-sided markets, not only the users draw utility from the rankings, but the rankings also determine the utility (e.g. exposure, revenue) for the item providers (e.g. publishers, sellers, artists, studios). It has already been noted that myopically optimizing utility to the users, as done by virtually all learning-to-rank algorithms, can be unfair to the item providers. We, therefore, present a learning-to-rank approach for explicitly enforcing merit-based fairness guarantees to groups of items (e.g. articles by the same publisher, tracks by the same artist). In particular, we propose a learning algorithm that ensures notions of amortized group fairness, while simultaneously learning the ranking function from implicit feedback data. The algorithm takes the form of a controller that integrates unbiased estimators for both fairness and utility, dynamically adapting both as more data becomes available. In addition to its rigorous theoretical foundation and convergence guarantees, we find empirically that the algorithm is highly practical and robust.
In offline reinforcement learning (RL), the goal is to learn a successful policy using only a dataset of historical interactions with the environment, without any additional online interactions. This serves as an extreme test for an agent's ability to effectively use historical data, which is critical for efficient RL. Prior work in offline RL has been confined almost exclusively to model-free RL approaches. In this work, we present MOReL, an algorithmic framework for model-based RL in the offline setting. This framework consists of two steps: (a) learning a pessimistic MDP model using the offline dataset; (b) learning a near-optimal policy in the learned pessimistic MDP. The construction of the pessimistic MDP is such that for any policy, the performance in the real environment is lower bounded by the performance in the pessimistic MDP. This enables the pessimistic MDP to serve as a good surrogate for the purposes of policy evaluation and learning. Overall, MOReL is amenable to detailed theoretical analysis, enables easy and transparent design of practical algorithms, and leads to state-of-the-art results on widely studied offline RL benchmark tasks.
Addressing unfairness in rankings has become an increasingly important problem due to the growing influence of rankings in critical decision making, yet existing learning-to-rank algorithms suffer from multiple drawbacks when learning fair ranking policies from implicit feedback. Some algorithms suffer from extrinsic reasons of unfairness due to inherent selection biases in implicit feedback leading to rich-get-richer dynamics. While those that address the biased nature of implicit feedback suffer from intrinsic reasons of unfairness due to the lack of explicit control over the allocation of exposure based on merit (i.e, relevance). In both cases, the learned ranking policy can be unfair and lead to suboptimal results. To this end, we propose a novel learning-to-rank framework, FULTR, that is the first to address both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons of unfairness when learning ranking policies from logged implicit feedback. Considering the needs of various applications, we define a class of amortized fairness of exposure constraints with respect to items based on their merit, and propose corresponding counterfactual estimators of disparity (aka unfairness) and utility that are also robust to click noise. Furthermore, we provide an efficient algorithm that optimizes both utility and fairness via a policy-gradient approach. To show that our proposed algorithm learns accurate and fair ranking policies from biased and noisy feedback, we provide empirical results beyond the theoretical justification of the framework.
Conventional Learning-to-Rank (LTR) methods optimize the utility of the rankings to the users, but they are oblivious to their impact on the ranked items. However, there has been a growing understanding that the latter is important to consider for a wide range of ranking applications (e.g. online marketplaces, job placement, admissions). To address this need, we propose a general LTR framework that can optimize a wide range of utility metrics (e.g. NDCG) while satisfying fairness of exposure constraints with respect to the items. This framework expands the class of learnable ranking functions to stochastic ranking policies, which provides a language for rigorously expressing fairness specifications. Furthermore, we provide a new LTR algorithm called Fair-PG-Rank for directly searching the space of fair ranking policies via a policy-gradient approach. Beyond the theoretical evidence in deriving the framework and the algorithm, we provide empirical results on simulated and real-world datasets verifying the effectiveness of the approach in individual and group-fairness settings.
The ability to perform offline A/B-testing and off-policy learning using logged contextual bandit feedback is highly desirable in a broad range of applications, including recommender systems, search engines, ad placement, and personalized health care. Both offline A/B-testing and off-policy learning require a counterfactual estimator that evaluates how some new policy would have performed, if it had been used instead of the logging policy. This paper proposes a new counterfactual estimator - called Continuous Adaptive Blending (CAB) - for this policy evaluation problem that combines regression and weighting approaches for an effective bias/variance trade-off. It can be substantially less biased than clipped Inverse Propensity Score weighting and the Direct Method, and it can have less variance compared with Doubly Robust and IPS estimators. Experimental results show that CAB provides excellent and reliable estimation accuracy compared to other blended estimators, and - unlike the SWITCH estimator - is sub-differentiable such that it can be used for learning.