{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2024:RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI","short_pith_number":"pith:RQQ5MGL4","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"8c21d6197cb52f8ebba23f2a25264c020c8f73a49034c7423ee95ff0044d40dc","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2412.04466","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"User-item fairness tradeoffs in recommendations","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CY"],"primary_cat":"cs.IR","authors_text":"Nikhil Garg, Sophie Greenwood, Sudalakshmee Chiniah","submitted_at":"2024-12-05T18:59:51Z","abstract_excerpt":"In the basic recommendation paradigm, the most (predicted) relevant item is recommended to each user. This may result in some items receiving lower exposure than they \"should\"; to counter this, several algorithmic approaches have been developed to ensure item fairness. These approaches necessarily degrade recommendations for some users to improve outcomes for items, leading to user fairness concerns. In turn, a recent line of work has focused on developing algorithms for multi-sided fairness, to jointly optimize user fairness, item fairness, and overall recommendation quality. This induces the"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2412.04466","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.IR","submitted_at":"2024-12-05T18:59:51Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.CY"],"title_canon_sha256":"6f3176556190d76e8a1735a14f2c87fe4d6fdc0f60c3305bba06b60b33e2739a","abstract_canon_sha256":"64eba393f9b404690f36ae5129b7ba1fa79e6d9b0e88f18b8b1be7ac65643bc9"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183969Z","signature_b64":"VT0/B4QxJ7vFwO/U763N6nn2xPRqhfSdBaAr/oXe7SpYPMNPlHQxDseCPXCGjqOsxV7bIu0ZvXUGvYSXjsX8Cg==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"8c21d6197cb52f8ebba23f2a25264c020c8f73a49034c7423ee95ff0044d40dc","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183495Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183495Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"User-item fairness tradeoffs in recommendations","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CY"],"primary_cat":"cs.IR","authors_text":"Nikhil Garg, Sophie Greenwood, Sudalakshmee Chiniah","submitted_at":"2024-12-05T18:59:51Z","abstract_excerpt":"In the basic recommendation paradigm, the most (predicted) relevant item is recommended to each user. This may result in some items receiving lower exposure than they \"should\"; to counter this, several algorithmic approaches have been developed to ensure item fairness. These approaches necessarily degrade recommendations for some users to improve outcomes for items, leading to user fairness concerns. In turn, a recent line of work has focused on developing algorithms for multi-sided fairness, to jointly optimize user fairness, item fairness, and overall recommendation quality. This induces the"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2412.04466","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2412.04466/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2412.04466","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2412.04466v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2412.04466","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"RQQ5MGL4WUXY","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5C","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"RQQ5MGL4","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.26369","citing_title":"Scoring Is Not Enough: Addressing Gaps in Utility-fairness Trade-offs for Ranking","ref_index":59,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI","json":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/RQQ5MGL4"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/RQQ5MGL4","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2412.04466&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/RQQ5MGL4WUXY5O5CH4VCKJSMAI/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T09:45:04.183547+00:00"}