System-2 Recommenders: Disentangling Utility and Engagement in Recommendation Systems via Temporal Point-Processes
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recommender systems are an important part of the modern human experience whose influence ranges from the food we eat to the news we read. Yet, there is still debate as to what extent recommendation platforms are aligned with the user goals. A core issue fueling this debate is the challenge of inferring a user utility based on engagement signals such as likes, shares, watch time etc., which are the primary metric used by platforms to optimize content. This is because users utility-driven decision-processes (which we refer to as System-2), e.g., reading news that are relevant for them, are often confounded by their impulsive decision-processes (which we refer to as System-1), e.g., spend time on click-bait news. As a result, it is difficult to infer whether an observed engagement is utility-driven or impulse-driven. In this paper we explore a new approach to recommender systems where we infer user utility based on their return probability to the platform rather than engagement signals. Our intuition is that users tend to return to a platform in the long run if it creates utility for them, while pure engagement-driven interactions that do not add utility, may affect user return in the short term but will not have a lasting effect. We propose a generative model in which past content interactions impact the arrival rates of users based on a self-exciting Hawkes process. These arrival rates to the platform are a combination of both System-1 and System-2 decision processes. The System-2 arrival intensity depends on the utility and has a long lasting effect, while the System-1 intensity depends on the instantaneous gratification and tends to vanish rapidly. We show analytically that given samples it is possible to disentangle System-1 and System-2 and allow content optimization based on user utility. We conduct experiments on synthetic data to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2024.
Builds on
19 of 58 references.
References · 19
- 2021Neural Temporal Point Processes: A Reviewcited by 113
- 2019Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Long-term User Engagement in Recommender Systemscited by 90
- 2019Degenerate Feedback Loops in Recommender Systemscited by 67
- 2020Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rankcited by 67
- 2019Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTubecited by 52
- 2022Estimating and Penalizing Induced Preference Shifts in Recommender Systemscited by 29
- 2021What are you optimizing for? Aligning Recommender Systems with Human Valuescited by 28
- 2022The Challenge of Understanding What Users Want: Inconsistent Preferences and Engagement Optimizationcited by 28
- 2022Building Human Values into Recommender Systems: An Interdisciplinary Synthesiscited by 22
- 2020From Optimizing Engagement to Measuring Valuecited by 21
- 2023Impatient Bandits: Optimizing Recommendations for the Long-Term Without Delaycited by 17
- 2019Algorithmic Extremism: Examining YouTube's Rabbit Hole of Radicalizationcited by 12
7 more
- 2020A Longitudinal Analysis of YouTube's Promotion of Conspiracy Videoscited by 9
- 2019Self-Control in Cyberspace: Applying Dual Systems Theory to a Review of Digital Self-Control Toolscited by 8
- 2023Choosing the Right Weights: Balancing Value, Strategy, and Noise in Recommender Systemscited by 7
- 2022Fast online ranking with fairness of exposurecited by 5
- 2014Time-Inconsistent Planning: A Computational Problem in Behavioral Economicscited by 4
- 2018"So, Tell Me What Users Want, What They Really, Really Want!"cited by 3
- 2023Ranking with Long-Term Constraintscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.
- 2025CTRL-Rec: Controlling Recommender Systems With Natural Language14 Oct 2025
- 2025MultiScale Contextual Bandits for Long Term Objectives22 Mar 2025