Equality of Voice: Towards Fair Representation in Crowdsourced Top-K Recommendations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
To help their users to discover important items at a particular time, major websites like Twitter, Yelp, TripAdvisor or NYTimes provide Top-K recommendations (e.g., 10 Trending Topics, Top 5 Hotels in Paris or 10 Most Viewed News Stories), which rely on crowdsourced popularity signals to select the items. However, different sections of a crowd may have different preferences, and there is a large silent majority who do not explicitly express their opinion. Also, the crowd often consists of actors like bots, spammers, or people running orchestrated campaigns. Recommendation algorithms today largely do not consider such nuances, hence are vulnerable to strategic manipulation by small but hyper-active user groups. To fairly aggregate the preferences of all users while recommending top-K items, we borrow ideas from prior research on social choice theory, and identify a voting mechanism called Single Transferable Vote (STV) as having many of the fairness properties we desire in top-K item (s)elections. We develop an innovative mechanism to attribute preferences of silent majority which also make STV completely operational. We show the generalizability of our approach by implementing it on two different real-world datasets. Through extensive experimentation and comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, we show that our proposed approach provides maximum user satisfaction, and cuts down drastically on items disliked by most but hyper-actively promoted by a few users.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Nov 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 5; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
11 papers.
- 2022Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directionscited by 30
- 2021Two-sided fairness in rankings via Lorenz dominancecited by 28
- 2022Fairness in Recommendation: Foundations, Methods and Applicationscited by 27
- 2022Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directionscited by 21
- 2021Fairness Through Regularization for Learning to Rankcited by 8
- 2021Towards Fair Recommendation in Two-Sided Platformscited by 8
- 2022RADio -- Rank-Aware Divergence Metrics to Measure Normative Diversity in News Recommendationscited by 7
- 2022Fast online ranking with fairness of exposurecited by 5
- 2025FROG: Fair Removal on Graphscited by 4
- 2023Subset Selection Based On Multiple Rankings in the Presence of Bias: Effectiveness of Fairness Constraints for Multiwinner Voting Score Functionscited by 2
- 2024Intuitions of Compromise: Utilitarianism vs. Contractualismcited by 1
- 2025FROG: Fair Removal on Graphs23 Mar 2025
- 2024Intuitions of Compromise: Utilitarianism vs. Contractualism7 Oct 2024
- 2023Subset Selection Based On Multiple Rankings in the Presence of Bias: Effectiveness of Fairness Constraints for Multiwinner Voting Score Functions16 Jun 2023
- 2022RADio -- Rank-Aware Divergence Metrics to Measure Normative Diversity in News Recommendations17 Sep 2022
- 2022Fast online ranking with fairness of exposure13 Sep 2022
- 2022Fairness in Recommendation: Foundations, Methods and Applications26 May 2022
- 2022Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions23 May 2022
- 2022Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directions29 Jan 2022
- 2021Towards Fair Recommendation in Two-Sided Platforms26 Dec 2021
- 2021Two-sided fairness in rankings via Lorenz dominance28 Oct 2021
- 2021Fairness Through Regularization for Learning to Rank11 Feb 2021