Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

The Impact of Popularity Bias on Fairness and Calibration in Recommendation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1910.05755 v3 pith:HFWGPIUG submitted 2019-10-13 cs.IR

The Impact of Popularity Bias on Fairness and Calibration in Recommendation

classification cs.IR
keywords biaspopularitymiscalibrationrecommendationusersdifferentgroupsitems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recently there has been a growing interest in fairness-aware recommender systems, including fairness in providing consistent performance across different users or groups of users. A recommender system could be considered unfair if the recommendations do not fairly represent the tastes of a certain group of users while other groups receive recommendations that are consistent with their preferences. In this paper, we use a metric called miscalibration for measuring how a recommendation algorithm is responsive to users' true preferences and we consider how various algorithms may result in different degrees of miscalibration. A well-known type of bias in recommendation is popularity bias where few popular items are over-represented in recommendations, while the majority of other items do not get significant exposure. We conjecture that popularity bias is one important factor leading to miscalibration in recommendation. Our experimental results using two real-world datasets show that there is a strong correlation between how different user groups are affected by algorithmic popularity bias and their level of interest in popular items. Moreover, we show algorithms with greater popularity bias amplification tend to have greater miscalibration.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Datasets for Navigating Sensitive Topics in Recommendation Systems

    cs.IR 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    Two benchmark datasets link user-preference data (MovieLens, Archive of Our Own) with community content-warning labels to study sensitive-content exposure in recommender systems.

  2. From Skill Extraction to Multistakeholder Recommendation: A Two-Stage Framework for Bias Governance in Skills-Based Job Matching

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Bias governance for job matching is split into audited skill extraction (hard/soft constraints) and multistakeholder recommendation (agent rankings aggregated by voting rules), providing an audit trail under the EU AI Act.

  3. Fair Agents: Balancing Multistakeholder Alignment in Multi-Agent Personalization Systems

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The authors propose a conceptual framework integrating stakeholder-LLM alignment methods, social choice-based aggregation for collective decisions, and stakeholder-centric evaluations to achieve fair multi-agent perso...