mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Privacy-Utility-Bias Trade-offs for Privacy-Preserving Recommender Systems

arXiv 2511.22515 ↗First posted 27 Nov 2025cs.LGcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recommender systems (RSs) output ranked lists of items, such as movies or restaurants, that users may find interesting, based on the user's past ratings and ratings from other users. RSs increasingly incorporate differential privacy (DP) to protect user data, raising questions about how privacy mechanisms affect both recommendation accuracy and fairness. We conduct a comprehensive, cross-model evaluation of two DP mechanisms, differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DPSGD) and local differential privacy (LDP), applied to four recommender systems (Neural Collaborative Filtering (NCF), Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR), Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), and Variational Autoencoder (VAE)) on the MovieLens-1M and Yelp datasets. We find that stronger privacy consistently reduces utility, but not uniformly. NCF under DPSGD shows the smallest accuracy loss (under 10 percent at epsilon approximately 1), whereas SVD and BPR experience larger drops, especially for users with niche preferences. VAE is the most sensitive to privacy, with sharp declines for sparsely represented groups. The impact on bias metrics is similarly heterogeneous. DPSGD generally reduces the gap between recommendations of popular and less popular items, whereas LDP preserves existing patterns more closely. These results highlight that no single DP mechanism is uniformly superior; instead, each provides trade-offs under different privacy regimes and data conditions.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 73 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Nov 2025.

Builds on

25 of 73 references.

References · 25

  1. 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,728
  2. 2017Neural Collaborative Filteringcited by 1,111
  3. 2021Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Trainingcited by 567
  4. 2019Differential Privacy Has Disparate Impact on Model Accuracycited by 316
  5. 2018Variational Autoencoders for Collaborative Filteringcited by 310
  6. 2016Recommendations as Treatments: Debiasing Learning and Evaluationcited by 248
  7. 2017Collecting Telemetry Data Privatelycited by 149
  8. 2021When the Curious Abandon Honesty: Federated Learning Is Not Privatecited by 127
  9. 2019The Unfairness of Popularity Bias in Recommendationcited by 70
  10. 2022A Survey on Trustworthy Recommender Systemscited by 41
  11. 2021User-centered Evaluation of Popularity Bias in Recommender Systemscited by 38
  12. 2024Evaluations of Machine Learning Privacy Defenses are Misleadingcited by 36
13 more
  1. 2020The Connection Between Popularity Bias, Calibration, and Fairness in Recommendationcited by 35
  2. 2024Understanding Biases in ChatGPT-based Recommender Systems: Provider Fairness, Temporal Stability, and Recencycited by 28
  3. 2015Fast Differentially Private Matrix Factorizationcited by 20
  4. 2017Measuring Personalization of Web Searchcited by 20
  5. 2022Unlearning Protected User Attributes in Recommendations with Adversarial Trainingcited by 20
  6. 2022The Unfairness of Popularity Bias in Book Recommendationcited by 14
  7. 2023A Comprehensive Survey of Evaluation Techniques for Recommendation Systemscited by 12
  8. 2021Fast Multi-Step Critiquing for VAE-based Recommender Systemscited by 6
  9. 2018Item Recommendation with Variational Autoencoders and Heterogenous Priorscited by 5
  10. 2023Private Matrix Factorization with Public Item Featurescited by 3
  11. 2024The Impact of Differential Privacy on Recommendation Accuracy and Popularity Biascited by 3
  12. 2024A Personalized Framework for Consumer and Producer Group Fairness Optimization in Recommender Systemscited by 3
  13. 2018Differentially Private User-based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Based on K-means Clusteringcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.