mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Disincentivizing Polarization in Social Networks

arXiv 2305.14537 ↗First posted 23 May 2023cs.CY cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

On social networks, algorithmic personalization drives users into filter bubbles where they rarely see content that deviates from their interests. We present a model for content curation and personalization that avoids filter bubbles, along with algorithmic guarantees and nearly matching lower bounds. In our model, the platform interacts with n users over T timesteps, choosing content for each user from k categories. The platform receives stochastic rewards as in a multi-arm bandit. To avoid filter bubbles, we draw on the intuition that if some users are shown some category of content, then all users should see at least a small amount of that content. We first analyze a naive formalization of this intuition and show it has unintended consequences: it leads to ``tyranny of the majority'' with the burden of diversification borne disproportionately by those with minority interests. This leads us to our model which distributes this burden more equitably. We require that the probability any user is shown a particular type of content is at least γ times the average probability all users are shown that type of content. Full personalization corresponds to γ = 0 and complete homogenization corresponds to γ = 1; hence, γ encodes a hard cap on the level of personalization. We also analyze additional formulations where the platform can exceed its cap but pays a penalty proportional to its constraint violation. We provide algorithmic guarantees for optimizing recommendations subject to these constraints. These include nearly matching upper and lower bounds for the entire range of γ ∈ [0,1] showing that the reward of a multi-agent variant of UCB is nearly optimal. Using real-world preference data, we empirically verify that under our model, users share the burden of diversification with only minor utility loss under our constraints.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2023.

Builds on

13 of 34 references.

References · 13

  1. 2019Introduction to Multi-Armed Banditscited by 475
  2. 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 167
  3. 2013Bandits with Knapsackscited by 163
  4. 2019Linear Stochastic Bandits Under Safety Constraintscited by 90
  5. 2014Bandits with concave rewards and convex knapsackscited by 83
  6. 2020Stochastic Bandits with Linear Constraintscited by 68
  7. 2019Degenerate Feedback Loops in Recommender Systemscited by 67
  8. 2016Conservative Banditscited by 58
  9. 2020Hidden Incentives for Auto-Induced Distributional Shiftcited by 42
  10. 2020Fair Algorithms for Multi-Agent Multi-Armed Banditscited by 41
  11. 2019Safe Linear Thompson Sampling with Side Informationcited by 37
  12. 2021Exposure Inequality in People Recommender Systems: The Long-Term Effectscited by 11
1 more
  1. 2023Optimal Engagement-Diversity Tradeoffs in Social Mediacited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.