mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Aggregating User Preferences while Ensuring Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion using Graph Summarization

arXiv 2610.07128 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2026cs.SI cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Aggregating the preferences of diverse user groups into a collective outcome raises fundamental challenges of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI): classical aggregation rules such as Borda and Condorcet have no mechanism to prevent results from systematically favoring majority groups, collapsing onto homogeneous items, or under-representing minorities. We address this problem through EDI-constrained graph summarization. User preferences are modeled as a weighted attributed bipartite graph, and a greedy coarsening algorithm iteratively merges user nodes while enforcing three structural EDI criteria: an equity gap constraint (Delta E), an intra-list diversity constraint (ILD), and a group inclusion constraint. Rather than correcting fairness after aggregation, our method embeds EDI preservation directly into the graph structure. We evaluate across five datasets spanning four domains: MovieLens 100k and 1M, libimseti.cz, Rate My Professors, and OpenAlex (2018-2023). Our method, AURORA, achieves the largest and most consistent diversity gains over classical voting rules, and on MovieLens 100k at k = 20 it simultaneously improves all three EDI criteria over both Borda and Condorcet. On Rate My Professors, it combines high diversity (ILD = 0.808) with the highest female item representation (60%), at a moderate equity cost, and it achieves the lowest equity gap (Delta E = 0.031) on OpenAlex, where Borda-based methods recommend zero female authors. On libimseti.cz, the only dataset where the sensitive attribute is present on both sides of the bipartite graph, our method does not reduce the equity gap, a limitation we connect to prior findings that demographic parity is not always an appropriate target. These results demonstrate that embedding EDI constraints into aggregation structure yields more robust fairness-diversity trade-offs than post-hoc approaches.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

Builds on

6 of 15 references.

References · 6

  1. 2018User Fairness in Recommender Systemscited by 21
  2. 2016Graph Summarization Methods and Applications: A Surveycited by 16
  3. 2023Proportional Fairness in Clustering: A Social Choice Perspectivecited by 13
  4. 2017New Fairness Metrics for Recommendation that Embrace Differencescited by 4
  5. 2023A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Summarization with Graph Neural Networkscited by 4
  6. 2023Exploring Social Choice Mechanisms for Recommendation Fairness in SCRUFcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.