arxiv: 2602.14706 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-16 · 💻 cs.IR

Adaptive Autoguidance for Item-Side Fairness in Diffusion Recommender Systems

Zihan Li , Gustavo Escobedo , Marta Moscati , Oleg Lesota , Markus Schedl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 21:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR

keywords diffusion recommender systemsitem-side fairnesspopularity biasadaptive autoguidancefairness regularizationitem exposure balance

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

A2G-DiffRec adapts guidance weights between main and weak diffusion models to improve item fairness with little accuracy cost.

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

The paper introduces A2G-DiffRec to reduce popularity bias in diffusion recommender systems that otherwise favor popular items. It replaces fixed guidance with an adaptive mechanism that learns to blend outputs from the primary model and a less-trained copy of itself. Training supervision comes from a fairness regularization term that penalizes uneven exposure across popularity groups. Results across three public datasets indicate higher item-side fairness than prior guided diffusion approaches and non-diffusion baselines, accompanied by only marginal accuracy drops. A reader would care because the method offers a lightweight way to make generative recommenders more equitable without overhauling the core architecture.

Core claim

A2G-DiffRec embeds adaptive autoguidance into diffusion-based recommendation by dynamically weighting the main model's predictions against those of a weaker, less-trained version of the same model. The weighting parameters are optimized under a fairness-aware regularization objective that promotes balanced item exposure across different popularity levels. On three public datasets the resulting system delivers stronger item-side fairness than existing guided diffusion recommenders and non-diffusion baselines while incurring only a small reduction in recommendation accuracy.

What carries the argument

Adaptive autoguidance that learns to combine outputs from the main diffusion model and a weaker copy of itself, supervised by fairness regularization on item exposure.

If this is right

Diffusion recommenders can replace fixed guidance scales with learned adaptive weights without redesigning the generative backbone.
Fairness regularization can directly supervise model blending during training to target item exposure balance.
Item popularity bias can be mitigated while retaining most of the accuracy advantage of diffusion architectures.
The same adaptive scheme may apply to other conditional generation tasks where exposure fairness matters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the adaptive weighting generalizes, similar autoguidance could be added to non-diffusion generative recommenders to address exposure bias.
Long-term user retention might improve if reduced popularity bias keeps more items visible over time.
Scalability tests on larger catalogs would clarify whether the fairness gain holds when item counts grow by orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

That weights learned adaptively from fairness regularization alone will produce stable, balanced item exposure without hidden harms to recommendation quality or training dynamics.

What would settle it

A replication experiment on the same three datasets showing that A2G-DiffRec either fails to increase fairness metrics over standard guided diffusion or produces accuracy drops larger than reported.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14706 by Gustavo Escobedo, Markus Schedl, Marta Moscati, Oleg Lesota, Zihan Li.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Overview of A2G-DiffRec. During training, AAN learns to produce a weight to fuse the output of the main and the weak model at each step; the same fusion is applied during sampling. main model and the weak model, d (2) t captures the relative activation strength between the two models, and d (3) t quantifies the difference in prediction entropy. Together with the raw predictions z1 and z0, these components… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Diffusion recommender systems achieve strong recommendation accuracy but often suffer from popularity bias, resulting in unequal item exposure. To address this shortcoming, we introduce A2G-DiffRec, a diffusion recommender that incorporates adaptive autoguidance, where the main model is guided by a less-trained version of itself. Instead of using a fixed guidance weight, A2G-DiffRec learns to adaptively weigh the outputs of the main and weak models during training, supervised by a fairness-aware regularization that promotes balanced exposure across items with different popularity levels. Experimental results on three public datasets show that A2G-DiffRec is effective in enhancing item-side fairness at a marginal cost of accuracy reduction compared to existing guided diffusion recommenders and other non-diffusion baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A2G-DiffRec makes guidance weights adaptive under fairness regularization in diffusion recommenders, but the abstract leaves the stability and empirical claims hard to evaluate.

read the letter

The core move is replacing fixed guidance scales with weights between a main diffusion model and a weaker version of itself, where the weights are learned under a fairness regularizer that pushes for more balanced item exposure across popularity levels. That is the actual novelty; prior guided diffusion recommenders used static scalars, so tying the adaptation directly to an exposure-balancing term is a clean extension rather than a rehash.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes A2G-DiffRec, a diffusion recommender system that mitigates popularity bias via adaptive autoguidance: a main model is guided by a less-trained weak version of itself, with the guidance weights learned during training under a fairness-aware regularization term that encourages balanced item exposure across popularity strata. Experiments on three public datasets are reported to show improved item-side fairness at only marginal accuracy cost relative to fixed-guidance diffusion baselines and non-diffusion methods.

Significance. If the adaptive weighting mechanism proves stable and produces genuine fairness gains without hidden degradation in recommendation quality, the approach would provide a practical, training-time method for controlling exposure bias in diffusion recommenders, which currently excel in accuracy but suffer from popularity skew. The idea of supervising guidance weights directly with an external fairness signal is a clear conceptual advance over fixed-scale guidance, though its reliability hinges on unstated details of weight dynamics.

major comments (2)

[Method] Method section: the adaptive weights between main and weak model outputs are optimized solely under the fairness regularizer with no described bounds, clipping, entropy penalty, or validation that weights remain interior to (0,1) across popularity strata. Because diffusion sampling is already sensitive to guidance scale, unconstrained optimization risks driving weights to boundary values (disabling autoguidance) or inducing oscillations that simultaneously harm NDCG and fairness metrics; this directly undermines the central claim that the learned weights reliably produce balanced exposure.
[Abstract / Experiments] Abstract and Experiments section: the positive experimental outcomes are stated without any reported metrics (e.g., NDCG@K, fairness measures such as Gini coefficient or exposure ratio), error bars, data splits, or exact baseline implementations. This absence makes it impossible to verify the asserted “marginal cost of accuracy reduction” or to assess whether the fairness gains are statistically meaningful, rendering the soundness of the central empirical claim only partially supported.

minor comments (1)

[Method] Notation for the adaptive weight (scalar vs. per-item) is introduced without an explicit equation or pseudocode showing how it is computed and applied inside the diffusion sampling step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications, which will strengthen the presentation of our method and empirical results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Method] Method section: the adaptive weights between main and weak model outputs are optimized solely under the fairness regularizer with no described bounds, clipping, entropy penalty, or validation that weights remain interior to (0,1) across popularity strata. Because diffusion sampling is already sensitive to guidance scale, unconstrained optimization risks driving weights to boundary values (disabling autoguidance) or inducing oscillations that simultaneously harm NDCG and fairness metrics; this directly undermines the central claim that the learned weights reliably produce balanced exposure.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not explicitly describe bounds, clipping, or validation procedures for the learned guidance weights. In the revised version we will expand the method section to specify the optimization constraints (including any clipping to the open interval (0,1) and an entropy penalty on the weight distribution), and we will add a new subsection with training curves and per-stratum statistics demonstrating that the weights remain interior and stable across popularity groups. This addition will directly address the concern about boundary convergence and oscillations. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract / Experiments] Abstract and Experiments section: the positive experimental outcomes are stated without any reported metrics (e.g., NDCG@K, fairness measures such as Gini coefficient or exposure ratio), error bars, data splits, or exact baseline implementations. This absence makes it impossible to verify the asserted “marginal cost of accuracy reduction” or to assess whether the fairness gains are statistically meaningful, rendering the soundness of the central empirical claim only partially supported.

Authors: The referee correctly notes that the abstract and experiments section omit concrete numerical results, error bars, and full experimental details. We will revise the abstract to report key quantitative outcomes (NDCG@K, Gini coefficient, exposure ratio) and will expand the experiments section to include all metrics with standard deviations over multiple random seeds, explicit train/validation/test splits, and precise baseline configurations (including hyper-parameter settings and implementation references). These changes will allow readers to fully verify the claimed marginal accuracy cost and statistical significance of the fairness improvements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; fairness regularization provides independent external supervision

full rationale

The paper defines A2G-DiffRec by adding an adaptive weighting mechanism between main and weak model outputs, with the weights optimized under an explicit fairness-aware regularization term that penalizes unequal item exposure across popularity strata. This regularization functions as an external loss component rather than being derived from the model's own fitted parameters or predictions by construction. No equations reduce the claimed fairness improvement to a tautological renaming or self-citation chain; the training objective combines the standard diffusion loss with the fairness term as a distinct supervisory signal. Experimental comparisons to guided diffusion baselines and non-diffusion methods further anchor the results in external benchmarks instead of internal self-consistency alone.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that a less-trained model version supplies useful debiasing signal and that the fairness regularization term can be optimized without destabilizing the diffusion process.

free parameters (1)

adaptive guidance weights
Learned parameters that determine the balance between main and weak model outputs during training.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Less-trained model provides useful guidance signal for fairness
Invoked to justify autoguidance setup in the method description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5434 in / 1115 out tokens · 20787 ms · 2026-05-15T21:59:19.701478+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

Himan Abdollahpouri, Robin Burke, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2017. Controlling Popularity Bias in Learning-to-Rank Recommendation. InProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Como, Italy)(RecSys ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 42–46. doi:10.1145/ 3109859.3109912

work page arXiv 2017
[2]

Himan Abdollahpouri, Masoud Mansoury, Robin Burke, and Bamshad Mobasher

work page
[3]

InProceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Virtual Event, Brazil)(RecSys ’20)

The Connection Between Popularity Bias, Calibration, and Fairness in Recommendation. InProceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Virtual Event, Brazil)(RecSys ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 726–731. doi:10.1145/3383313.3418487

work page doi:10.1145/3383313.3418487
[4]

Himan Abdollahpouri, Masoud Mansoury, Robin Burke, Bamshad Mobasher, and Edward Malthouse. 2021. User-Centered Evaluation of Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems. InProceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization(Utrecht, Netherlands)(UMAP ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 119–128. doi:...

work page arXiv 2021
[5]

Noah Buchanan, Susan Gauch, and Quan Mai. 2024. Incorporating Classifier- Free Guidance in Diffusion Model-Based Recommendation. In2024 IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI- IAT)(Bangkok, Thailand). IEEE, 94–101. doi:10.1109/WI-IAT62293.2024.00021

work page doi:10.1109/wi-iat62293.2024.00021 2024
[6]

Filippo Carnovalini, Antonio Rodà, and Geraint A. Wiggins. 2025. Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems: The Search for Fairness in the Long Tail.Information 16, 2, Article 151 (2025). doi:10.3390/info16020151

work page doi:10.3390/info16020151 2025
[7]

Ruixin Chen, Jianping Fan, Meiqin Wu, and Sining Ma. 2025. Conditional Dif- fusion Model for Recommender Systems.Neural Networks185 (2025), 107204. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107204

work page doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107204 2025
[8]

Yashar Deldjoo, Dietmar Jannach, Alejandro Bellogin, Alessandro Difonzo, and Dario Zanzonelli. 2023. Fairness in recommender systems: research landscape and future directions.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction34, 1 (April 2023), 59–108. doi:10.1007/s11257-023-09364-z

work page doi:10.1007/s11257-023-09364-z 2023
[9]

Ekstrand, Mucun Tian, Ion Madrazo Azpiazu, Jennifer D

Michael D. Ekstrand, Mucun Tian, Ion Madrazo Azpiazu, Jennifer D. Ekstrand, Oghenemaro Anuyah, David McNeill, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2018. All The Cool Kids, How Do They Fit In?: Popularity and Demographic Biases in Rec- ommender Evaluation and Effectiveness. InProceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of...

work page 2018
[10]

Daniel Fleder and Kartik Hosanagar. 2009. Blockbuster Culture’s Next Rise or Fall: The Impact of Recommender Systems on Sales Diversity.Management Science 55, 5 (May 2009), 697–712. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0974

work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0974 2009
[11]

Christian Ganhör*, Marta Moscati*, Anna Hausberger, Shah Nawaz, and Markus Schedl. 2024. A Multimodal Single-Branch Embedding Network for Recommenda- tion in Cold-Start and Missing Modality Scenarios. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Bari, Italy)(RecSys ’24). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 380–390....

work page doi:10.1145/3640457.3688138 2024
[12]

Christian Ganhör, Marta Moscati, Anna Hausberger, Shah Nawaz, and Markus Schedl. 2025. Single-Branch Network Architectures to Close the Modality Gap in Multimodal Recommendation.ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst.(Sept. 2025). doi:10. 1145/3769430

work page 2025
[13]

2025.In-situ Autoguidance: Eliciting Self-Correction in Diffusion Models

Enhao Gu and Haolin Hou. 2025.In-situ Autoguidance: Eliciting Self-Correction in Diffusion Models. arXiv:2510.17136 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.17136

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17136 2025
[14]

Maxwell Harper and Joseph A

F. Maxwell Harper and Joseph A. Konstan. 2015. The MovieLens Datasets: History and Context.ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst.5, 4, Article 19 (Dec. 2015), 19 pages. doi:10.1145/2827872

work page doi:10.1145/2827872 2015
[15]

Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, YongDong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendation. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Confer- ence on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Virtual Event, China) (SIGIR ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

work page doi:10.1145/3397271.3401063 2020
[16]

Zhenhao Jiang and Jicong Fan. 2024. DifFaiRec: Generative Fair Recommender with Conditional Diffusion Model. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)(Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates). IEEE, 717–722. doi:10.1109/ ICDM59182.2024.00082

work page arXiv 2024
[17]

Di Jin, Luzhi Wang, He Zhang, Yizhen Zheng, Weiping Ding, Feng Xia, and Shirui Pan. 2023. A survey on fairness-aware recommender systems.Information Fusion SIGIR ’26, July 20–24, 2026, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Zihan Li, Gustavo Escobedo, Marta Moscati, Oleg Lesota, and Markus Schedl 100, C, Article 101906 (Dec. 2023), 22 pages. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101906

work page doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101906 2023
[18]

Mintong Kang, Vinayshekhar Bannihatti Kumar, Shamik Roy, Abhishek Kumar, Sopan Khosla, Balakrishnan Murali Narayanaswamy, and Rashmi Gangadharaiah

work page
[19]

FairGen: Controlling Sensitive Attributes for Fair Generations in Diffusion Models via Adaptive Latent Guidance. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing(Suzhou, China), Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, 25336–253...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025 2025
[20]

Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Tuomas Kynkäänniemi, Jaakko Lehtinen, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. 2024. Guiding a diffusion model with a bad version of itself. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(NeurIPS ’24). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, Article 1679, 26 pages. doi...

work page doi:10.52202/079017-1679 2024
[21]

Tuomas Kynkäänniemi, Miika Aittala, Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Timo Aila, and Jaakko Lehtinen. 2024. Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(NeurIPS ’24). Curran Associates Inc., R...

work page doi:10.52202/079017-3892 2024
[22]

Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. 2017. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. InProceed- ings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Long Beach, California, USA)(NeurIPS’17). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 6405–6416. doi:10.52202/075280-2820

work page doi:10.52202/075280-2820 2017
[23]

Oleg Lesota, Adrian Bajko, Max Walder, Matthias Wenzel, Antonela Tommasel, and Markus Schedl. 2025. Fine-tuning for Inference-efficient Calibrated Recom- mendations. InProceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Prague, Czech Republic)(RecSys ’25). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 1187–1192. doi:10.1145/370...

work page doi:10.1145/3705328.3759319 2025
[24]

Krishnan, Matthew D

Dawen Liang, Rahul G. Krishnan, Matthew D. Hoffman, and Tony Jebara. 2018. Variational Autoencoders for Collaborative Filtering. InProceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference(Lyon, France)(WWW ’18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 689–698. doi:10.1145/3178876.3186150

work page doi:10.1145/3178876.3186150 2018
[25]

Daniele Malitesta, Giacomo Medda, Erasmo Purificato, Mirko Marras, Fragkiskos Malliaros, and Ludovico Boratto. 2025. How Fair is Your Diffusion Recommender Model?. InProceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Prague, Czech Republic)(RecSys ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1199–1205. doi:10.1145/370532...

work page doi:10.1145/3705328.3759318 2025
[26]

Marta Moscati, Emilia Parada-Cabaleiro, Yashar Deldjoo, Eva Zangerle, and Markus Schedl. 2022. Music4All-Onion – A Large-Scale Multi-faceted Content- Centric Music Recommendation Dataset. InProceedings of the 31st ACM Interna- tional Conference on Information & Knowledge Management(Atlanta, GA, USA) (CIKM ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

work page 2022
[27]

doi:10.1145/3511808.3557656

work page doi:10.1145/3511808.3557656
[28]

2025.Biases, Fairness, and Non-discrimination

Markus Schedl, Vito Walter Anelli, and Elisabeth Lex. 2025.Biases, Fairness, and Non-discrimination. Springer, Cham, 29–67

work page 2025
[29]

Dazhong Shen, Guanglu Song, Zeyue Xue, Fu-Yun Wang, and Yu Liu. 2024. Rethinking the Spatial Inconsistency in Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Seattle, WA, USA). IEEE, 9370–9379. doi:10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.00895

work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00895 2024
[30]

Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of Exposure in Rankings. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining(London, United Kingdom)(KDD ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2219–2228. doi:10.1145/3219819. 3220088

work page doi:10.1145/3219819 2018
[31]

Wenjie Wang, Yiyan Xu, Fuli Feng, Xinyu Lin, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua

work page
[32]

InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Taipei, Taiwan)(SIGIR ’23)

Diffusion Recommender Model. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Taipei, Taiwan)(SIGIR ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 832–841. doi:10.1145/3539618.3591663

work page doi:10.1145/3539618.3591663
[33]

Xiuling Wang and Wendy Hui Wang. 2022. Providing Item-side Individual Fairness for Deep Recommender Systems. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Con- ference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 117–127. doi:10.1145/3531146.3533079

work page doi:10.1145/3531146.3533079 2022
[34]

Dingqi Yang, Daqing Zhang, Longbiao Chen, and Bingqing Qu. 2015. Na- tionTelescope: Monitoring and visualizing large-scale collective behavior in LBSNs.Journal of Network and Computer Applications55 (2015), 170–180. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2015.05.010

work page doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2015.05.010 2015
[35]

Ran Yang, Yihao Zhang, Kaibei Li, Qinyang He, Xiaokang Li, and Wei Zhou

work page
[36]

doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107695

Adversarial regularized diffusion model for fair recommendations.Neural Networks190 (2025), 107695. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107695

work page doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107695 2025
[37]

Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Mega- hed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2017. FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Manage- ment(Singapore, Singapore)(CIKM ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1569–1578. doi:10.1145/313284...

work page doi:10.1145/3132847.3132938 2017