اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدClicks can be Cheating: Counterfactual Recommendation for Mitigating Clickbait Issue
264
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Recommendation is a prevalent and critical service in information systems. To provide personalized suggestions to users, industry players embrace machine learning, more specifically, building predictive models based on the click behavior data. This is known as the Click-Through Rate (CTR) prediction, which has become the gold standard for building personalized recommendation service. However, we argue that there is a significant gap between clicks and user satisfaction -- it is common that a user is cheated to click an item by the attractive title/cover of the item. This will severely hurt users trust on the system if the user finds the actual content of the clicked item disappointing. Whats even worse, optimizing CTR models on such flawed data will result in the Matthew Effect, making the seemingly attractive but actually low-quality items be more frequently recommended. In this paper, we formulate the recommendation models as a causal graph that reflects the cause-effect factors in recommendation, and address the clickbait issue by performing counterfactual inference on the causal graph. We imagine a counterfactual world where each item has only exposure features (i.e., the features that the user can see before making a click decision). By estimating the click likelihood of a user in the counterfactual world, we are able to reduce the direct effect of exposure features and eliminate the clickbait issue. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our method significantly improves the post-click satisfaction of CTR models.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
By providing explanations for users and system designers to facilitate better understanding and decision making, explainable recommendation has been an important research problem. In this paper, we propose Counterfactual Explainable Recommendation (C
ountER), which takes the insights of counterfactual reasoning from causal inference for explainable recommendation. CountER is able to formulate the complexity and the strength of explanations, and it adopts a counterfactual learning framework to seek simple (low complexity) and effective (high strength) explanations for the model decision. Technically, for each item recommended to each user, CountER formulates a joint optimization problem to generate minimal changes on the item aspects so as to create a counterfactual item, such that the recommendation decision on the counterfactual item is reversed. These altered aspects constitute the explanation of why the original item is recommended. The counterfactual explanation helps both the users for better understanding and the system designers for better model debugging. Another contribution of the work is the evaluation of explainable recommendation, which has been a challenging task. Fortunately, counterfactual explanations are very suitable for standard quantitative evaluation. To measure the explanation quality, we design two types of evaluation metrics, one from users perspective (i.e. why the user likes the item), and the other from models perspective (i.e. why the item is recommended by the model). We apply our counterfactual learning algorithm on a black-box recommender system and evaluate the generated explanations on five real-world datasets. Results show that our model generates more accurate and effective explanations than state-of-the-art explainable recommendation models.
Recommender systems are gaining increasing and critical impacts on human and society since a growing number of users use them for information seeking and decision making. Therefore, it is crucial to address the potential unfairness problems in recomm
endations. Just like users have personalized preferences on items, users demands for fairness are also personalized in many scenarios. Therefore, it is important to provide personalized fair recommendations for users to satisfy their personalized fairness demands. Besides, previous works on fair recommendation mainly focus on association-based fairness. However, it is important to advance from associative fairness notions to causal fairness notions for assessing fairness more properly in recommender systems. Based on the above considerations, this paper focuses on achieving personalized counterfactual fairness for users in recommender systems. To this end, we introduce a framework for achieving counterfactually fair recommendations through adversary learning by generating feature-independent user embeddings for recommendation. The framework allows recommender systems to achieve personalized fairness for users while also covering non-personalized situations. Experiments on two real-world datasets with shallow and deep recommendation algorithms show that our method can generate fairer recommendations for users with a desirable recommendation performance.
Counterfactual explanations are emerging as an attractive option for providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions. As they are deployed in critical applications (e.g. law enforcement, financial lending), it becomes im
portant to ensure that we clearly understand the vulnerabilities of these methods and find ways to address them. However, there is little understanding of the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of counterfactual explanations. In this work, we introduce the first framework that describes the vulnerabilities of counterfactual explanations and shows how they can be manipulated. More specifically, we show counterfactual explanations may converge to drastically different counterfactuals under a small perturbation indicating they are not robust. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a novel objective to train seemingly fair models where counterfactual explanations find much lower cost recourse under a slight perturbation. We describe how these models can unfairly provide low-cost recourse for specific subgroups in the data while appearing fair to auditors. We perform experiments on loan and violent crime prediction data sets where certain subgroups achieve up to 20x lower cost recourse under the perturbation. These results raise concerns regarding the dependability of current counterfactual explanation techniques, which we hope will inspire investigations in robust counterfactual explanations.
Learning user representations based on historical behaviors lies at the core of modern recommender systems. Recent advances in sequential recommenders have convincingly demonstrated high capability in extracting effective user representations from th
e given behavior sequences. Despite significant progress, we argue that solely modeling the observational behaviors sequences may end up with a brittle and unstable system due to the noisy and sparse nature of user interactions logged. In this paper, we propose to learn accurate and robust user representations, which are required to be less sensitive to (attack on) noisy behaviors and trust more on the indispensable ones, by modeling counterfactual data distribution. Specifically, given an observed behavior sequence, the proposed CauseRec framework identifies dispensable and indispensable concepts at both the fine-grained item level and the abstract interest level. CauseRec conditionally samples user concept sequences from the counterfactual data distributions by replacing dispensable and indispensable concepts within the original concept sequence. With user representations obtained from the synthesized user sequences, CauseRec performs contrastive user representation learning by contrasting the counterfactual with the observational. We conduct extensive experiments on real-world public recommendation benchmarks and justify the effectiveness of CauseRec with multi-aspects model analysis. The results demonstrate that the proposed CauseRec outperforms state-of-the-art sequential recommenders by learning accurate and robust user representations.
As machine learning models are increasingly used in critical decision-making settings (e.g., healthcare, finance), there has been a growing emphasis on developing methods to explain model predictions. Such textit{explanations} are used to understand
and establish trust in models and are vital components in machine learning pipelines. Though explanations are a critical piece in these systems, there is little understanding about how they are vulnerable to manipulation by adversaries. In this paper, we discuss how two broad classes of explanations are vulnerable to manipulation. We demonstrate how adversaries can design biased models that manipulate model agnostic feature attribution methods (e.g., LIME & SHAP) and counterfactual explanations that hill-climb during the counterfactual search (e.g., Wachters Algorithm & DiCE) into textit{concealing} the models biases. These vulnerabilities allow an adversary to deploy a biased model, yet explanations will not reveal this bias, thereby deceiving stakeholders into trusting the model. We evaluate the manipulations on real world data sets, including COMPAS and Communities & Crime, and find explanations can be manipulated in practice.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
