mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Unfairness of Active Users and Popularity Bias in Point-of-Interest Recommendation

arXiv 2202.13307 ↗First posted 27 Feb 2022cs.IR cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Point-of-Interest (POI) recommender systems provide personalized recommendations to users and help businesses attract potential customers. Despite their success, recent studies suggest that highly data-driven recommendations could be impacted by data biases, resulting in unfair outcomes for different stakeholders, mainly consumers (users) and providers (items). Most existing fairness-related research works in recommender systems treat user fairness and item fairness issues individually, disregarding that RS work in a two-sided marketplace. This paper studies the interplay between (i) the unfairness of active users, (ii) the unfairness of popular items, and (iii) the accuracy (personalization) of recommendation as three angles of our study triangle. We group users into advantaged and disadvantaged levels to measure user fairness based on their activity level. For item fairness, we divide items into short-head, mid-tail, and long-tail groups and study the exposure of these item groups into the top-k recommendation list of users. Experimental validation of eight different recommendation models commonly used for POI recommendation (e.g., contextual, CF) on two publicly available POI recommendation datasets, Gowalla and Yelp, indicate that most well-performing models suffer seriously from the unfairness of popularity bias (provider unfairness). Furthermore, our study shows that most recommendation models cannot satisfy both consumer and producer fairness, indicating a trade-off between these variables possibly due to natural biases in data. We choose the POI recommendation as our test scenario; however, the insights should be trivially extendable on other domains.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Feb 2022.

Builds on

20 of 38 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  2. 2017Neural Collaborative Filteringcited by 1,108
  3. 2018Variational Autoencoders for Collaborative Filteringcited by 308
  4. 2020Bias and Debias in Recommender System: A Survey and Future Directionscited by 239
  5. 2019Are We Really Making Much Progress? A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Approachescited by 181
  6. 2021Causal Intervention for Leveraging Popularity Bias in Recommendationcited by 116
  7. 2017Personalizing Session-based Recommendations with Hierarchical Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 84
  8. 2019Managing Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems with Personalized Re-rankingcited by 81
  9. 2021User-oriented Fairness in Recommendationcited by 75
  10. 2017Multisided Fairness for Recommendationcited by 69
  11. 2019The Unfairness of Popularity Bias in Recommendationcited by 68
  12. 2021User-centered Evaluation of Popularity Bias in Recommender Systemscited by 38
8 more
  1. 2022A Review of Modern Fashion Recommender Systemscited by 25
  2. 2019The Unfairness of Popularity Bias in Music Recommendation: A Reproducibility Studycited by 24
  3. 2019Addressing Marketing Bias in Product Recommendationscited by 23
  4. 2020Joint Geographical and Temporal Modeling based on Matrix Factorization for Point-of-Interest Recommendationcited by 11
  5. 2021Analyzing Item Popularity Bias of Music Recommender Systems: Are Different Genders Equally Affected?cited by 9
  6. 2022On Sampling Collaborative Filtering Datasetscited by 8
  7. 2022Consumer Fairness in Recommender Systems: Contextualizing Definitions and Mitigationscited by 7
  8. 2019LGLMF: Local Geographical based Logistic Matrix Factorization Model for POI Recommendationcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

9 papers.