Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

FairSort: Learning to Fair Rank for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FairSort re-ranks recommendation lists so every user keeps a guaranteed utility floor while providers get fairer exposure.

desk verdict Workmanlike post-processing method with a genuinely useful per-user utility floor; provider-side 'guarantee' is overclaimed and the theorem proof is too loose to support the headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00424 v2 pith:KJ52OCVX submitted 2024-11-30 cs.GT cs.IR

Guoli Wu , Zhiyong Feng , Shizhan Chen , Hongyue Wu , Xiao Xue , Jianmao Xiao , Guodong Fan , Hongqi Chen
show 1 more author
Jingyu Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.IR
keywords two-sidedfairnessrecommendersystemslearningtorankexposurere-rankingminimumutilityguaranteeprovideruser
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FairSort is a re-ranking model that aims to satisfy both sides of a two-sided platform at once: users who want accurate personalized lists and providers who want a fair share of exposure. The paper argues that framing the problem as a knapsack and solving it greedily makes the quality loss unpredictable across users. Instead it treats each recommendation list as a runway where items move up or down with a velocity determined by how far their provider's exposure deviates from a fair benchmark. A binary search over a single fairness weight lambda then stops the items at a point where the user's NDCG stays above a guaranteed threshold. If correct, FairSort offers both-side fairness with a per-user quality floor, in both offline and online settings.

What carries the argument

The runway model assigns each item a score $V_{u,i} + \lambda \cdot \text{getFair}(i)$, where $V_{u,i}$ is the original preference score and $\text{getFair}(i)$ is a lift velocity derived from the provider's current deviation from its fair exposure conversion rate. Items from the same provider share one velocity, so the partial order within each provider's group is preserved. The 'running time' $\lambda$ is then tuned by binary search using Theorem 1, which guarantees that NDCG falls monotonically in $\lambda$; the algorithm picks the largest $\lambda$ whose resulting NDCG stays at or above the user's threshold. The velocities are recomputed as exposure allocations change, and the algorithm has two variants for offline batch and online request scenarios.

What would settle it

Take any user-item preference matrix and a fixed set of lift velocities, then re-rank the list using $V_{u,i} + \lambda \cdot \text{getFair}(i)$ over a fine grid of $\lambda$ values from 0 to $\lambda_{\max}$; if for any user NDCG at a larger $\lambda$ exceeds NDCG at a smaller $\lambda$, the monotonicity in Theorem 1 fails and the binary search guarantee collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the runway re-ranking formulation, combined with a binary search over the running time lambda, can enforce a Minimum Utility Guarantee for every user while still shifting exposure toward a provider-side fair benchmark. The load-bearing assertion is Theorem 1: for any user, the NDCG of the re-ranked list starts at 1 and decreases monotonically as lambda increases. This monotonicity makes the search for the lambda that just meets the utility threshold safe and efficient, replacing the greedy knapsack heuristics of earlier two-sided fairness methods. The paper reports experiments on three real-world datasets showing that FairSort keeps total recommendation quality near Top-K levels, keeps NDCG variance low across users, and converges provider exposure toward the fairness benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The per-user utility guarantee rests on NDCG decreasing monotonically as $\lambda$ grows, and on the existence of a large enough $\lambda$ for every user that makes NDCG fall to or below the chosen threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FairSort guarantees that no user's recommendation list drops below a preset NDCG threshold, whereas greedy baselines can produce lists with NDCG as low as 0.5.
  • Provider exposure converges to either the uniform or quality-weighted fair benchmark, with variance approaching zero on real datasets.
  • The binary search adds at most $O(\log(\lambda_{\max}/\text{gap}))$ sorting rounds per user, keeping total complexity $O(m(l + g \log g))$ offline and $O(l + g \log g)$ per request online.
  • The runway view generalizes the knapsack framing: it needs no NP-hard solving and applies to both offline and online serving with a small parameter set ($\lambda_{\max}$, $\text{gap}$, threshold, ratio).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The monotonicity theorem, if it extends to the online setting where velocities are updated after every user, could support a closed-form scheduling rule for $\lambda$ as a function of exposure error, removing the need to search each time.
  • The same 'runway with velocities and a monotone quality curve' construction could address other constrained re-ranking goals, such as diversity or novelty, whenever the quality metric is monotone in the trade-off weight.
  • An empirical audit of monotonicity under the online, velocity-updating schedule would reveal whether the guarantee is robust; the paper's proof assumes a fixed velocity vector while the algorithm itself recomputes velocities per user.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FairSort, a post-processing re-ranking method for Top-K recommendations that aims to balance user-side and provider-side fairness in two-sided platforms. Each item is assigned a 'lift velocity' derived from its provider's current deviation from a fair exposure benchmark, and a scalar trade-off parameter λ controls the relative weight of the original preference score and the velocity. For each user, λ is determined by a binary search intended to keep the NDCG of the re-ranked list at or above a pre-specified threshold, which the paper calls the Minimum Utility Guarantee. Two variants are given for offline and online recommendation scenarios, and experiments are reported on Ctrip, Amazon, and Google datasets against Top-K, Mixed-K, All Random, Minimum Exposure, FairRec, CPFair, and TFROM. Section VII contains a proof attempt of Theorem 1, which states that NDCG decreases monotonically as λ increases.

Significance. If the monotonicity theorem and the velocity heuristic were rigorously established, the Minimum Utility Guarantee would be a practically useful property, because most prior two-sided fairness methods rely on greedy strategies and do not provide a per-user utility floor. The paper ships code and evaluates on three real-world datasets, which is a strength. The 'runway' perspective is mostly a metaphor, and the algorithm itself is a linear-score re-ranking with a binary-search λ; the main technical contribution is the utility floor combined with an exposure-shifting heuristic. The provider-side fairness claim is the weakest part of the paper: no convergence guarantee is provided, and the authors' own Google-dataset experiments show only mitigation rather than convergence. The paper's claims are therefore stronger than what is currently established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VII, Theorem 1 proof] The proof of Theorem 1 is not valid as written. The set A_{λ0} is defined with an inner '∀ i,j∈ I' that makes it unclear whether it contains all pairs or only some pairs; it also uses Δλ→0+ inside the definition, so A_{λ0} is not a well-defined set for a fixed λ0. More importantly, the proof assumes that order changes between λ0 and λ0+Δλ can be decomposed into adjacent swaps ('one-by-one destruction of the partial order relations'), but a global argsort can resolve many inversions at once, and a non-adjacent swap changes the ranks of intervening items. The final limit argument is not justified because NDCG is piecewise constant in λ between order-change points; a one-sided derivative statement requires a neighborhood with no other swaps, and behavior at a crossing must be handled separately. Lemma 1's contradiction argument also contains an incorrect dichotomy ('constantly less than 0 or transition from <0 at the beginning to constant ≥0'), although the lemma's conclusion may be repairable by a linearity argument.
  2. [Section IV-A, Eqs. (15)-(16) and Algorithm 1] The Minimum Utility Guarantee is only valid if, for every user and every lift vector encountered, the interval [0, λmax] contains a λtarget with NDCG_u(λtarget)=threshold. Theorem 1 only states that NDCG decreases monotonically; it does not show that NDCG can be driven to or below any given threshold as λ grows, especially when ratio<1, because items outside R are never re-ranked and NDCG has a positive floor. The paper does not prove that the chosen hyperparameter λmax satisfies NDCG_u(λmax)≤threshold, and the experiments select λmax from a small set {22,23,24} by tuning. Without this existence condition, the binary search can return a λ whose NDCG is above the threshold, and the claimed guarantee fails.
  3. [Section IV-A/B and Section VI] Provider-side fairness is not established. Equations (10)-(13) define a heuristic velocity update, and Algorithms 1 and 2 update exposure after each user, but no theorem or bound shows that the resulting exposure vector converges to eFair or even decreases in distance to it. Section VI explicitly concedes that further research is needed to guarantee bounds on fairness ('the implicit function E14 requires further research to guarantee bounds on the degree of fairness or unfairness'). Moreover, Section V-C reports that on the Google dataset FairSort does not converge in provider-side fairness and 'only mitigate[s] the unfair distribution of exposure' (Fig. 9). The abstract and conclusion claim that FairSort can 'ensure' fairness for both sides; this claim is stronger than what is proven or empirically shown.
  4. [Section V, Figures 4-11 and Table I] The reported experimental results are point estimates with no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. Claims such as 'FairSort consistently delivers the best performance' (Section V-C, RQ3) are not supported beyond the particular runs shown. Since λmax, gap, threshold, and ratio are chosen from small grids, an ablation or sensitivity analysis is needed to show that the conclusions are not brittle to hyperparameter choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (12)] The filter function J is never defined; the sentence 'The output is the original value if the parameter and the numerator have the same sign' is ambiguous, and the denominator may be zero if all J outputs are zero.
  2. [Section VII-A] The quantity NDCG_u^{(i,j)} is called an NDCG component but omits normalization by the ideal DCG; please clarify that this is a numerator term.
  3. [Theorem 1 statement] The statement 'λ∈[0,+∞]' includes +∞, but NDCG at λ=+∞ is not defined; please use [0,∞) or define the limit behavior.
  4. [Table I] The header of Table I is malformed ('FairSortQualityWeightedTFROMQualityWeighted...'); the columns should be labeled clearly, including which fairness variant each column corresponds to.
  5. [Section V-C] The text contains corrupted glyph sequences such as '/uni00000037/uni00000052/...' that appear to be a PDF extraction artifact; these should be cleaned before publication.
  6. [Title and terminology] The phrase 'learning to rank' is misleading because the method performs post-processing re-ranking and does not learn a ranking model; consider using 'fair re-ranking' in the title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NDCG monotonicity theorem is an internal mathematical proof, the utility floor is an enforced design constraint rather than a fitted prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1, which asserts that NDCG decreases monotonically with the fairness weight lambda, is proved in Section VII from the definitions of NDCG (Eq. 3) and the re-ranking score V_ui + lambda * getFair(i) (Eq. 14); it is an internal argument rather than an assumption smuggled in as a conclusion. The binary search then uses this theorem to select lambda, and the Minimum Utility Guarantee is achieved by construction because the algorithm explicitly enforces NDCG >= threshold through the search. This is an algorithmic constraint-satisfaction property, not an empirical prediction derived from the data it was fit to, so it does not match the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The provider-side fairness mechanism is heuristic and the paper itself concedes in Section VI that 'the implicit function E14 requires further research to guarantee bounds on the degree of fairness or unfairness'; that is a correctness or convergence limitation, not circularity. The comparisons to TFROM, FairRec, and CPFair are external baselines, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence bar is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the chosen exposure and quality models, the value-laden fairness definitions, and two unproven properties: NDCG monotonicity in lambda and convergence of the sequential exposure updates. The hyperparameters threshold, ratio, lambda_max, and gap are user-supplied, and the velocity normalization depends on an unspecified filter J in Eq. (12).

free parameters (5)
  • threshold = 0.85, 0.90, or 0.95
    User-specified NDCG floor; the Minimum Utility Guarantee is defined relative to this value and the binary search enforces it. The paper does not state which value produced each figure.
  • ratio = 0.1, 0.2, or 1
    Candidate-pool fraction that determines how many top items participate in re-ranking; it affects both the achievable fairness and the utility floor.
  • lambda_max = 2^2, 2^3, or 2^4
    Upper bound for the fairness weight; the binary search assumes it is large enough to push every user's NDCG below the threshold.
  • gap = 2^-5, 2^-6, or 2^-7
    Binary search precision that controls how closely the achieved NDCG approaches the threshold from above.
  • filter function J = unspecified
    Eq. (12) normalizes velocities using a filter function J that is never defined in the paper, leaving the velocity values under-specified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Exposure decays as 1/log2(rank+1).
    Section III-B defines exposure using this position-based decay function; the fair exposure benchmark eFair is computed from this model.
  • domain assumption The original Top-K list is the optimal list, with NDCG equal to 1.
    Section III-C states this assumption; the monotonicity theorem and the binary search start from NDCG=1.
  • domain assumption User-side fairness is defined as equal NDCG above a threshold.
    Definition 1 (Section III-D) is a value choice, not a mathematical consequence.
  • domain assumption Provider-side fairness is defined as equal exposure per item count or per total quality.
    Definitions 2 and 3 (Section III-E) select the fairness notions used by the algorithm.
  • ad hoc to paper NDCG decreases monotonically as lambda increases.
    Theorem 1 (Section VII) is load-bearing for the binary search, but the proof is invalid as written, so the result is effectively assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Sequential re-ranking drives provider exposure toward the fair benchmark.
    Algorithm 1 updates exposure after each user; the paper provides only empirical evidence of convergence, no proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FairSort: Learning to Fair Rank for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJ52OCVX

@misc{pith2026241200424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FairSort: Learning to Fair Rank for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJ52OCVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00424}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional recommendation systems focus on maximizing user satisfaction by suggesting their favourite items. This user-centric approach may lead to unfair exposure distribution among the providers. On the contrary, a provider-centric design might become unfair to the users. Therefore, this paper proposes a re-ranking model FairSort to find a trade-off solution among user-side fairness, provider-side fairness, and personalized recommendations utility. Previous works habitually treat this issue as a knapsack problem, incorporating both-side fairness as constraints. In this paper, we adopt a novel perspective, treating each recommendation list as a runway rather than a knapsack. In this perspective, each item on the runway gains a velocity and runs within a specific time, achieving re-ranking for both-side fairness. Meanwhile, we ensure the Minimum Utility Guarantee for personalized recommendations by designing a Binary Search approach. This can provide more reliable recommendations compared to the conventional greedy strategy based on the knapsack problem. We further broaden the applicability of FairSort, designing two versions for online and offline recommendation scenarios. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments on real-world datasets indicate that FairSort can ensure more reliable personalized recommendations while considering fairness for both the provider and user.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00424 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Re-rank problem to ensure both-side fairness. Items of identical colours signify they originate from the same provider. two-sided fairness problem in recommender systems, with the specific scenarios illustrated as follows. If we adopt the traditional Top-K recommendation method as shown in (Fig1 a), it is often seen as maximizing user satisfaction. whereas, Patro et al. [14] reveal that this user-centric approach ca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FairSort Offline Diagram. time, such as via an advertising push. The other is an online scenario where users’ requests arrive randomly.The system needs to respond to each request quickly and provide the recommendation results, for example, online purchases. A. FairSort For Offline Scenario Total Exposure Resources: In the offline scenario, it is a one-time recommendation service for all users. Then, when the number … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FairSort Online Diagram. Thus, the user side calculates the average recommendation quality. While the total exposure can be calculated as follows: Etotal = c num × XK rank=1 1 log2(rank + 1) where c num is the number of user requests. (17) Pseudocode is shown in Algorithm 2. We can calculate the total exposure when each user request arrives, according to the above formula. This is followed by the calculation of each… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experiment Results on Ctrip Dataset in the Offline Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experiment Results on Amazon Dataset in the Offline Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experiment Results on Google Dataset in the Offline Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experiment Results on Ctrip Dataset in the Online Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experiment Results on Amazon Dataset in the Online Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experiment Results on Google Dataset in the Online Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The UIR Results on Three Datasets in the Offline Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The UIR Results on Three Datasets in the Offline Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape,

    A. Castelnovo, R. Crupi, G. Greco, D. Regoli, I. G. Penco, and A. C. Cosentini, “A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4209, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,

    N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–35, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Recommendations as treatments: Debiasing learning and evaluation,

    T. Schnabel, A. Swaminathan, A. Singh, N. Chandak, and T. Joachims, “Recommendations as treatments: Debiasing learning and evaluation,” in international conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2016, pp. 1670–1679

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Reinforced negative sampling for recommendation with exposure data

    J. Ding, Y . Quan, X. He, Y . Li, and D. Jin, “Reinforced negative sampling for recommendation with exposure data.” in IJCAI. Macao, 2019, pp. 2230–2236

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Cascade model-based propen- sity estimation for counterfactual learning to rank,

    A. Vardasbi, M. de Rijke, and I. Markov, “Cascade model-based propen- sity estimation for counterfactual learning to rank,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2020, pp. 2089–2092

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Fair representation learning for recommendation: A mutual information perspective,

    C. Zhao, L. Wu, P. Shao, K. Zhang, R. Hong, and M. Wang, “Fair representation learning for recommendation: A mutual information perspective,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 4, 2023, pp. 4911–4919

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Fair representation learning for heterogeneous information networks,

    Z. Zeng, R. Islam, K. N. Keya, J. Foulds, Y . Song, and S. Pan, “Fair representation learning for heterogeneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 15, 2021, pp. 877–887

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Towards long-term fairness in recommendation,

    Y . Ge, S. Liu, R. Gao, Y . Xian, Y . Li, X. Zhao, C. Pei, F. Sun, J. Ge, W. Ou et al. , “Towards long-term fairness in recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining , 2021, pp. 445–453

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    User-oriented fairness in recommendation,

    Y . Li, H. Chen, Z. Fu, Y . Ge, and Y . Zhang, “User-oriented fairness in recommendation,” in Proceedings of the web conference 2021 , 2021, pp. 624–632

    2021

  2. [10]

    Fairness-aware explainable recommendation over knowledge graphs,

    Z. Fu, Y . Xian, R. Gao, J. Zhao, Q. Huang, Y . Ge, S. Xu, S. Geng, C. Shah, Y . Zhang et al., “Fairness-aware explainable recommendation over knowledge graphs,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval,...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Fairness among new items in cold start recommender systems,

    Z. Zhu, J. Kim, T. Nguyen, A. Fenton, and J. Caverlee, “Fairness among new items in cold start recommender systems,” in Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2021, pp. 767–776

    2021

  4. [12]

    Fairness in recommendation ranking through pairwise comparisons,

    A. Beutel, J. Chen, T. Doshi, H. Qian, L. Wei, Y . Wu, L. Heldt, Z. Zhao, L. Hong, E. H. Chi et al. , “Fairness in recommendation ranking through pairwise comparisons,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2019, p...

    2019

  5. [13]

    P- mmf: Provider max-min fairness re-ranking in recommender system,

    C. Xu, S. Chen, J. Xu, W. Shen, X. Zhang, G. Wang, and Z. Dong, “P- mmf: Provider max-min fairness re-ranking in recommender system,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 , 2023, pp. 3701–3711

    2023

  6. [14]

    Fairrec: Two-sided fairness for personalized recom- mendations in two-sided platforms,

    G. K. Patro, A. Biswas, N. Ganguly, K. P. Gummadi, and A. Chakraborty, “Fairrec: Two-sided fairness for personalized recom- mendations in two-sided platforms,” in Proceedings of the web confer- ence 2020, 2020, pp. 1194–1204

    2020

  7. [15]

    Tfrom: A two-sided fairness- aware recommendation model for both customers and providers,

    Y . Wu, J. Cao, G. Xu, and Y . Tan, “Tfrom: A two-sided fairness- aware recommendation model for both customers and providers,” in Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2021, pp. 1013– 1022

    2021

  8. [16]

    Cpfair: Personalized consumer and producer fairness re-ranking for recommender systems,

    M. Naghiaei, H. A. Rahmani, and Y . Deldjoo, “Cpfair: Personalized consumer and producer fairness re-ranking for recommender systems,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 770– 779

    2022

  9. [17]

    R. M. Karp, Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1972, pp. 85–103

    1972

  10. [18]

    Fairgan: Gans-based fairness-aware learning for recommendations with implicit feedback,

    J. Li, Y . Ren, and K. Deng, “Fairgan: Gans-based fairness-aware learning for recommendations with implicit feedback,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 , 2022, pp. 297–307

    2022

  11. [19]

    Learning fair representations for recommendation: A graph-based perspective,

    L. Wu, L. Chen, P. Shao, R. Hong, X. Wang, and M. Wang, “Learning fair representations for recommendation: A graph-based perspective,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , 2021, pp. 2198–2208

    2021

  12. [20]

    Selective fairness in recommendation via prompts,

    Y . Wu, R. Xie, Y . Zhu, F. Zhuang, A. Xiang, X. Zhang, L. Lin, and Q. He, “Selective fairness in recommendation via prompts,” in Proceed- ings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 2657–2662

    2022

  13. [21]

    Make fairness more fair: Fair item utility estimation and exposure re-distribution,

    J. Wang, W. Ma, J. Li, H. Lu, M. Zhang, B. Li, Y . Liu, P. Jiang, and S. Ma, “Make fairness more fair: Fair item utility estimation and exposure re-distribution,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2022, pp. 1868– 1877

    2022

  14. [22]

    Fairness of exposure in light of in- complete exposure estimation,

    M. Heuss, F. Sarvi, and M. de Rijke, “Fairness of exposure in light of in- complete exposure estimation,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2022, pp. 759–769

    2022

  15. [23]

    Toward a two-sided fairness framework in search and recommen- dation,

    J. Liu, “Toward a two-sided fairness framework in search and recommen- dation,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval , 2023, pp. 236–246

    2023

  16. [24]

    Intersectional two-sided fairness in recommendation,

    Y . Wang, P. Sun, W. Ma, M. Zhang, Y . Zhang, P. Jiang, and S. Ma, “Intersectional two-sided fairness in recommendation,” in Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 , 2024, pp. 3609–3620

    2024

  17. [25]

    Two-sided calibration for quality-aware responsible recommendation,

    C. Wang, Y . Liu, Y . Yu, W. Ma, M. Zhang, Y . Liu, H. Zeng, J. Feng, and C. Deng, “Two-sided calibration for quality-aware responsible recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2023, pp. 223–233

    2023

  18. [26]

    The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate com- petitive equilibrium from equal incomes,

    E. Budish, “The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate com- petitive equilibrium from equal incomes,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 1061–1103, 2011

    2011

  19. [28]

    User fairness, item fairness, and diversity for rankings in two-sided markets,

    L. Wang and T. Joachims, “User fairness, item fairness, and diversity for rankings in two-sided markets,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval , 2021, pp. 23–41

    2021

  20. [29]

    Fairness constraints: A flexible approach for fair classification,

    M. B. Zafar, I. Valera, M. Gomez-Rodriguez, and K. P. Gummadi, “Fairness constraints: A flexible approach for fair classification,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 2737–2778, 2019

    2019

  21. [30]

    Satisfying real- world goals with dataset constraints,

    G. Goh, A. Cotter, M. Gupta, and M. P. Friedlander, “Satisfying real- world goals with dataset constraints,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  22. [31]

    Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm,

    M. Zehlike, F. Bonchi, C. Castillo, S. Hajian, M. Megahed, and R. Baeza-Yates, “Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm,” in Proceed- ings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2017, pp. 1569–1578

    2017

  23. [32]

    Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings,

    A. J. Biega, K. P. Gummadi, and G. Weikum, “Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings,” in The 41st international acm sigir conference on research & development in information re- trieval, 2018, pp. 405–414

    2018

  24. [33]

    Modeling techniques for machine learning fairness: A survey,

    M. Wan, D. Zha, N. Liu, and N. Zou, “Modeling techniques for machine learning fairness: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03015 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Fairness in machine learning: A survey,

    S. Caton and C. Haas, “Fairness in machine learning: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04053, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Pollin, M

    R. Pollin, M. Brenner, S. Luce, and J. Wicks-Lim, A measure of fairness: The economics of living wages and minimum wages in the United States. Cornell University Press, 2008

    2008

  27. [36]

    Minimum wage setting and standards of fairness,

    D. A. Green and K. Harrison, “Minimum wage setting and standards of fairness,” IFS working papers, Tech. Rep., 2010

    2010

  28. [37]

    Fairness perceptions and reservation wages—the behavioral effects of minimum wage laws,

    A. Falk, E. Fehr, and C. Zehnder, “Fairness perceptions and reservation wages—the behavioral effects of minimum wage laws,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics , vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 1347–1381, 2006

    2006

  29. [38]

    Earnings inequality and the minimum wage: Evidence from brazil,

    N. Engbom and C. Moser, “Earnings inequality and the minimum wage: Evidence from brazil,” American Economic Review, vol. 112, no. 12, pp. 3803–47, 2022

    2022

  30. [39]

    The effects of the minimum wage on earnings inequality: Evidence from china,

    C. Lin and M.-S. Yun, “The effects of the minimum wage on earnings inequality: Evidence from china,” in Income Inequality Around the World. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2016, vol. 44, pp. 179– 212

    2016

  31. [40]

    Search engines that learn from implicit feedback,

    T. Joachims and F. Radlinski, “Search engines that learn from implicit feedback,” Computer, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 34–40, 2007

    2007

  32. [41]

    Cumulated gain-based evaluation of ir techniques,

    K. J ¨arvelin and J. Kek ¨al¨ainen, “Cumulated gain-based evaluation of ir techniques,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 422–446, 2002

    2002

  33. [42]

    Quicksort,

    C. A. Hoare, “Quicksort,” The computer journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 10–16, 1962

    1962

  34. [43]

    Addressing the cold-start problem in personalized flight ticket recommendation,

    Q. Gu, J. Cao, Y . Zhao, and Y . Tan, “Addressing the cold-start problem in personalized flight ticket recommendation,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 67 178–67 189, 2019

    2019

  35. [44]

    Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering,

    R. He and J. McAuley, “Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering,” in proceedings JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2023 14 of the 25th international conference on world wide web , 2016, pp. 507– 517

    2023

  36. [45]

    Factorization meets the item embedding: Regularizing matrix factorization with item co- occurrence,

    D. Liang, J. Altosaar, L. Charlin, and D. M. Blei, “Factorization meets the item embedding: Regularizing matrix factorization with item co- occurrence,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recom- mender systems, 2016, pp. 59–66

    2016

  37. [46]

    Location-based hierarchical matrix factorization for web service recommendation,

    P. He, J. Zhu, Z. Zheng, J. Xu, and M. R. Lyu, “Location-based hierarchical matrix factorization for web service recommendation,” in 2014 IEEE international conference on web services . IEEE, 2014, pp. 297–304. Guoli Wu was born in Guangdong, China, in 1999. He received his ma...

    2014

  38. [1965]

    degree from Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, in 1996

    He received the Ph.D. degree from Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, in 1996. He is currently a Professor with the College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China. He has authored more than 200 articles, one book and 40 patents. His research interest...

    1996

  39. [2017]

    Xiao Xue (Member, IEEE) was born in 1979

    He is a member of the IEEE. Xiao Xue (Member, IEEE) was born in 1979. He received the bachelor’s degree in engineering from North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China, in 2001, and the Ph.D. degree in engineering from the Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of ...

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.