Mesut Kaya

selected publications

1. Ensuring Fairness in Group Recommendations by Rank-Sensitive Balancing of Relevance

   Kaya, Mesut, Bridge, Derek, and Tintarev, Nava

   In Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2020

   Abs

   For group recommendations, one objective is to recommend an ordered set of items, a top-N, to a group such that each individual recommendation is relevant for everyone. A common way to do this is to select items on which the group can agree, using so-called ‘aggregation strategies’. One weakness of these aggregation strategies is that they select items independently of each other. They therefore cannot guarantee properties such as fairness, that apply to the set of recommendations as a whole. In this paper, we give a definition of fairness that ‘balances’ the relevance of the recommended items across the group members in a rank-sensitive way. Informally, an ordered set of recommended items is considered fair to a group if the relevance of the items in the top-N is balanced across the group members for each prefix of the top-N. In other words, the first item in the top-N should, as far as possible, balance the interests of all group members; the first two items taken together must do the same; also the first three; and so on up to N. In this paper, we formalize this notion of rank-sensitive balance and provide a greedy algorithm (GFAR) for finding a top-N set of group recommendations that satisfies our definition. We compare the performance of GFAR to five approaches from the literature on two datasets, one from each of the movie and music domains. We evaluate performance for 42 different configurations (two datasets, seven different group sizes, three different group types) and for ten evaluation metrics. We find that GFAR performs significantly better than all other algorithms around 43% of the time; in only 10% of cases are there algorithms that are significantly better than GFAR. Furthermore, GFAR performs particularly well in the most difficult cases, where groups are large and interests within the group diverge. We attribute GFAR’s success both to its rank-sensitivity and its way of balancing relevance. Current methods do not define fairness in a rank-sensitive way (although some achieve a degree of rank-sensitivity through the use of greedy algorithms) and none define balance in the way that we do.

2. A Comparison of Calibrated and Intent-Aware Recommendations

   Kaya, Mesut, and Bridge, Derek

   In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 2019

   Abs

   Calibrated and intent-aware recommendation are recent approaches to recommendation that have apparent similarities. Both try, to a certain extent, to cover the user’s interests, as revealed by her user profile. In this paper, we compare them in detail. On two datasets, we show the extent to which intent-aware recommendations are calibrated and the extent to which calibrated recommendations are diverse. We consider two ways of defining a user’s interests, one based on item features, the other based on subprofiles of the user’s profile. We find that defining interests in terms of subprofiles results in highest precision and the best relevance/diversity trade-off. Along the way, we define a new version of calibrated recommendation and three new evaluation metrics.

3. Subprofile-Aware Diversification of Recommendations

   Kaya, Mesut, and Bridge, Derek

   User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2019

   Abs

   A user of a recommender system is more likely to be satisfied by one or more of the recommendations if each individual recommendation is relevant to her but additionally if the set of recommendations is diverse. The most common approach to recommendation diversification uses re-ranking: the recommender system scores a set of candidate items for relevance to the user; it then re-ranks the candidates so that the subset that it will recommend achieves a balance between relevance and diversity. Ordinarily, we expect a trade-off between relevance and diversity: the diversity of the set of recommendations increases by including items that have lower relevance scores but which are different from the items already in the set. In early work, the diversity of a set of recommendations was given by the average of their distances from one another, according to some semantic distance metric defined on item features such as movie genres. More recent intent-aware diversification methods formulate diversity in terms of coverage and relevance of aspects. The aspects are most commonly defined in terms of item features. By trying to ensure that the aspects of a set of recommended items cover the aspects of the items in the user’s profile, the level of diversity is more personalized. In offline experiments on pre-collected datasets, intent-aware diversification using item features as aspects sometimes defies the relevance/diversity trade-off: there are configurations in which the recommendations exhibits increases in both relevance and diversity. In this paper, we present a new form of intent-aware diversification, which we call SPAD (Subprofile-Aware Diversification), and a variant called RSPAD (Relevance-based SPAD). In SPAD, the aspects are not item features; they are subprofiles of the user’s profile. We present and compare a number of different ways to extract subprofiles from a user’s profile. None of them is defined in terms of item features. Therefore, SPAD is useful even in domains where item features are not available or are of low quality. On three pre-collected datasets from three different domains (movies, music artists and books), we compare SPAD and RSPAD to intent-aware methods in which aspects are item features. We find on these datasets that SPAD and RSPAD suffer even less from the relevance/diversity trade-off: across all three datasets, they increase both relevance and diversity for even more configurations than other approaches to diversification. Moreover, we find that SPAD and RSPAD are the most accurate systems across all three datasets.