mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

User Fairness, Item Fairness, and Diversity for Rankings in Two-Sided Markets

arXiv 2010.01470 ↗First posted 4 Oct 2020cs.IR cs.AIcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ranking items by their probability of relevance has long been the goal of conventional ranking systems. While this maximizes traditional criteria of ranking performance, there is a growing understanding that it is an oversimplification in online platforms that serve not only a diverse user population, but also the producers of the items. In particular, ranking algorithms are expected to be fair in how they serve all groups of users -- not just the majority group -- and they also need to be fair in how they divide exposure among the items. These fairness considerations can partially be met by adding diversity to the rankings, as done in several recent works. However, we show in this paper that user fairness, item fairness and diversity are fundamentally different concepts. In particular, we find that algorithms that consider only one of the three desiderata can fail to satisfy and even harm the other two. To overcome this shortcoming, we present the first ranking algorithm that explicitly enforces all three desiderata. The algorithm optimizes user and item fairness as a convex optimization problem which can be solved optimally. From its solution, a ranking policy can be derived via a novel Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition algorithm that optimizes diversity. Beyond the theoretical analysis, we investigate empirically on a new benchmark dataset how effectively the proposed ranking algorithm can control user fairness, item fairness and diversity, as well as the trade-offs between them.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 6; 2023: 6; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

23 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2021Fairness of Exposure in Stochastic Banditscited by 42
  2. 2022CPFair: Personalized Consumer and Producer Fairness Re-ranking for Recommender Systemscited by 29
  3. 2024The Impossibility of Fair LLMscited by 22
  4. 2021A Next Basket Recommendation Reality Checkcited by 15
  5. 2022Optimizing generalized Gini indices for fairness in rankingscited by 13
  6. 2022Experiments on Generalizability of User-Oriented Fairness in Recommender Systemscited by 13
  7. 2023Performative Recommendation: Diversifying Content via Strategic Incentivescited by 12
  8. 2022Introducing the Expohedron for Efficient Pareto-optimal Fairness-Utility Amortizations in Repeated Rankingscited by 11
  9. 2022Uncertainty Quantification for Fairness in Two-Stage Recommender Systemscited by 10
  10. 2022COFFEE: Counterfactual Fairness for Personalized Text Generation in Explainable Recommendationcited by 6
  11. 2023Fairness in Matching under Uncertaintycited by 5
  12. 2023Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertaintycited by 4
11 more
  1. 2024Keep Everyone Happy: Online Fair Division of Numerous Items with Few Copiescited by 4
  2. 2021Subgroup Fairness in Two-Sided Marketscited by 3
  3. 2024A Personalized Framework for Consumer and Producer Group Fairness Optimization in Recommender Systemscited by 3
  4. 2025Policy Design for Two-sided Platforms with Participation Dynamicscited by 2
  5. 2025A Reproducibility Study of Product-side Fairness in Bundle Recommendationcited by 1
  6. 2023ExCalibR: Expected Calibration of Recommendationscited by 0
  7. 2023Learning to Re-rank with Constrained Meta-Optimal Transportcited by 0
  8. 2023FEIR: Quantifying and Reducing Envy and Inferiority for Fair Recommendation of Limited Resourcescited by 0
  9. 2024Towards Efficient Pareto-optimal Utility-Fairness between Groups in Repeated Rankingscited by 0
  10. 2025A Tutorial On Intersectionality in Fair Rankingscited by 0
  11. 2026Credit-assigned Policy Gradient for Early Stage Retrieval in Two-stage Rankingcited by 0