Using Stable Matching to Optimize the Balance between Accuracy and Diversity in Recommendation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Increasing aggregate diversity (or catalog coverage) is an important system-level objective in many recommendation domains where it may be desirable to mitigate the popularity bias and to improve the coverage of long-tail items in recommendations given to users. This is especially important in multistakeholder recommendation scenarios where it may be important to optimize utilities not just for the end user, but also for other stakeholders such as item sellers or producers who desire a fair representation of their items across recommendation lists produced by the system. Unfortunately, attempts to increase aggregate diversity often result in lower recommendation accuracy for end users. Thus, addressing this problem requires an approach that can effectively manage the trade-offs between accuracy and aggregate diversity. In this work, we propose a two-sided post-processing approach in which both user and item utilities are considered. Our goal is to maximize aggregate diversity while minimizing loss in recommendation accuracy. Our solution is a generalization of the Deferred Acceptance algorithm which was proposed as an efficient algorithm to solve the well-known stable matching problem. We prove that our algorithm results in a unique user-optimal stable match between items and users. Using three recommendation datasets, we empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in comparison to several baselines. In particular, our results show that the proposed solution is quite effective in increasing aggregate diversity and item-side utility while optimizing recommendation accuracy for end users.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
5 papers.
- 2023A Survey on Popularity Bias in Recommender Systemscited by 42
- 2021User-centered Evaluation of Popularity Bias in Recommender Systemscited by 38
- 2023When Newer is Not Better: Does Deep Learning Really Benefit Recommendation From Implicit Feedback?cited by 4
- 2025Dual-Phase Playtime-guided Recommendation: Interest Intensity Exploration and Multimodal Random Walkscited by 3
- 2024Bandit Learning in Matching Markets: Utilitarian and Rawlsian Perspectivescited by 1
- 2025Dual-Phase Playtime-guided Recommendation: Interest Intensity Exploration and Multimodal Random Walks9 Aug 2025
- 2024Bandit Learning in Matching Markets: Utilitarian and Rawlsian Perspectives30 Nov 2024
- 2023A Survey on Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems2 Aug 2023
- 2023When Newer is Not Better: Does Deep Learning Really Benefit Recommendation From Implicit Feedback?2 May 2023
- 2021User-centered Evaluation of Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems10 Mar 2021