Controlling Polarization in Personalization: An Algorithmic Framework

Personalization is pervasive in the online space as it leads to higher efficiency for the user and higher revenue for the platform by individualizing the most relevant content for each user. However, recent studies suggest that such personalization can learn and propagate systemic biases and polarize opinions; this has led to calls for regulatory mechanisms and algorithms that are constrained to combat bias and the resulting echo-chamber effect. We propose a versatile framework that allows for the possibility to reduce polarization in personalized systems by allowing the user to constrain the distribution from which content is selected. We then present a scalable algorithm with provable guarantees that satisfies the given constraints on the types of the content that can be displayed to a user, but -- subject to these constraints -- will continue to learn and personalize the content in order to maximize utility. We illustrate this framework on a curated dataset of online news articles that are conservative or liberal, show that it can control polarization, and examine the trade-off between decreasing polarization and the resulting loss to revenue. We further exhibit the flexibility and scalability of our approach by framing the problem in terms of the more general diverse content selection problem and test it empirically on both a News dataset and the MovieLens dataset.

[1]  Sandeep Pandey,et al.  Handling Advertisements of Unknown Quality in Search Advertising , 2006, NIPS.

[2]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Potential for Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising , 2018, FAT.

[3]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Bandits , 2016, NIPS.

[4]  Ronald E. Robertson,et al.  The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[6]  Eli Pariser The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[7]  Michael Carl Tschantz,et al.  Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings , 2014, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[8]  Peter Auer,et al.  Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem , 2002, Machine Learning.

[9]  Chong Wang,et al.  Collaborative topic modeling for recommending scientific articles , 2011, KDD.

[10]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[11]  A. Azzouz 2011 , 2020, City.

[12]  Neil J. Hurley,et al.  Incorporating Diversity in a Learning to Rank Recommender System , 2016, FLAIRS.

[13]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Media Bias Monitor: Quantifying Biases of Social Media News Outlets at Large-Scale , 2018, ICWSM.

[14]  Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella,et al.  A Long-Term Analysis of Polarization on Twitter , 2017, ICWSM.

[15]  Thomas P. Hayes,et al.  Stochastic Linear Optimization under Bandit Feedback , 2008, COLT.

[16]  Csaba Szepesvári,et al.  Improved Algorithms for Linear Stochastic Bandits , 2011, NIPS.

[17]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You , 2011 .

[18]  Shuai Li,et al.  Collaborative Filtering Bandits , 2015, SIGIR.

[19]  Nisheeth K. Vishnoi,et al.  Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guarantees , 2018, FAT.

[20]  Bhaskar Krishnamachari,et al.  Stochastic Contextual Bandits with Known Reward Functions , 2016, ArXiv.

[21]  Shipra Agrawal,et al.  Analysis of Thompson Sampling for the Multi-armed Bandit Problem , 2011, COLT.

[22]  Sun Hyoung Kim,et al.  Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  Linear Contextual Bandits with Knapsacks , 2015, NIPS.

[24]  Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella,et al.  Secular vs. Islamist polarization in Egypt on Twitter , 2013, 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2013).

[25]  Wei Chu,et al.  A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation , 2010, WWW '10.

[26]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  De-biasing user preference ratings in recommender systems completed research paper , 2014, RecSys 2014.

[27]  Jiahui Liu,et al.  Personalized news recommendation based on click behavior , 2010, IUI '10.

[28]  Eli Pariser FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden , 2012 .

[29]  David Lazer,et al.  Auditing the Personalization and Composition of Politically-Related Search Engine Results Pages , 2018, WWW.

[30]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Bayesian graphical models for adaptive filtering , 2005, SIGF.

[31]  Gediminas Adomavicius,et al.  Improving Aggregate Recommendation Diversity Using Ranking-Based Techniques , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[32]  P. Rousseeuw Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis , 1987 .

[33]  Tao Qin,et al.  Multi-Armed Bandit with Budget Constraint and Variable Costs , 2013, AAAI.

[34]  F. Maxwell Harper,et al.  The MovieLens Datasets: History and Context , 2016, TIIS.

[35]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[36]  Jeroen van den Hoven,et al.  Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design , 2015, Ethics and Information Technology.

[37]  Khalid Alfalqi,et al.  A Survey of Topic Modeling in Text Mining , 2015 .

[38]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Rejoinder - Implications of "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness" , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[39]  Ayman Farahat,et al.  How effective is targeted advertising? , 2012, 2013 American Control Conference.