<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>PaRIS: Polarization-aware Recommender Interactive System</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mahsa Badami</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Olfa Nasraoui</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Knowledge Discovery and Web Mining Lab, Computer Engineering and Computer Science Department, University of Louisville</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>132 Eastern Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, 40292</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>68</fpage>
      <lpage>75</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>One phenomenon that has been recently observed online is the emergence of polarization among users on social networks, where the population gets divided in groups with opposite opinions. As recommender system algorithms become more selective in filtering what users see and discover, one important question arises: Could recommender system algorithms become more selective in filtering what users see and discover? In this paper, we study this question and propose a new counter-polarization approach for existing Matrix Factorization based recommender systems, that can be tuned by a user-controlled counter-polarization parameter which serves like a voluntary user anti-polarization or discovery dial.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Recommender System</kwd>
        <kwd>Polarization</kwd>
        <kwd>Algorithmic bias</kwd>
        <kwd>Filter Bubble</kwd>
        <kwd>Echo Chamber</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Factorization objective function. Our counter-polarization approach is modulated by a
usercontrolled counter-polarization parameter which acts like a user discovery dial to give the user
the freedom to tune the severity of their filter bubbles as they wish.</p>
      <p>The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 3 presents our proposed methods
for handling polarization, followed by experiments in Section 4, and conclusions in Section 5.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Related Work</title>
      <p>
        Research on polarization in recommender systems has emerged rapidly, in recent years, as an
important interdisciplinary topic [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref6 ref7">9, 10, 5</xref>
        ], with eforts to formulate a richer understanding of
the potential characteristics of this Phenomenon and to decrease online polarization, especially
in recommender systems [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7 ref8 ref9">10, 3, 11, 12</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Polarization has been investigated from a network perspective mainly using the social network
structure, the content and sentiment of discussions [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref3">13, 6</xref>
        ], where as others studied polarization
based on the ratings provided by users on items, within the context of a recommender system
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref11">13, 14</xref>
        ]. Even though some researchers showed echo chambers in social media are somewhat
inevitable by design, other studies proposed strategies to mitigate such efects[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref13 ref14">15, 16, 17</xref>
        ].
Badami et al. proposed a counter-polarization methodology for combating over-specialization
in polarized environments [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">16</xref>
        ]. In another research, Tintarev el al. used visual explanations,
i.e., chord diagrams and bar charts [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">18</xref>
        ] to address polarization.
      </p>
      <p>Despite the reasonableness of prior works, most current work on polarization has relied
on textual content to detect sentiment and then polarization, or has been confined to specific
domains within the context of political (or other controversial domain) news and blogs. In this
paper, we are more interested in studying the emergence and aggravation of polarization as a
result of using collaborative filtering recommender systems.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Proposed Method</title>
      <p>Our scope is within the context of classical collaborative filtering (CF) Recommendation
algorithms that learn latent factor models, specifically Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), to
represent items and users based on a set of factors inferred from rating patterns.</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>3.1. Problem Definition</title>
        <p>
          Following the polarization definition in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">13</xref>
          ], we define polarization-aware collaborative filtering
as follows:
        </p>
        <p>Definition 1 - Polarization-aware collaborative filtering recommendation :
Given a set of ratings  ∈ R×  collected from a set of users  ∈ R1×  for a set of items
 ∈ R× 1, the problem of polarization-aware collaborative filtering recommendation (CF) can
be modeled by the triplet (, , ), in a way that a recommender system should recommend a
ranked item set 1, ...,  ∈  according to 1) the relevance of the item to the user’s interest, and
2) the item’s polarization score. From definition 2, an instance from (, , ) can be denoted by
(, , ) which means that user  rated item  with value .</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>3.2. Polarization-aware Recommender Interactive System - (PaRIS)</title>
        <p>The general problem of Non-negative matrix Factorization (NMF) is to decompose a non-negative
data matrix  with size  ×  into two positive elements matrix factors  and , with size
 ×  and  × , respectively, such that  ≪</p>
        <p>
          min (, ) is a positive integer representing the
rank of matrices  and  [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">19</xref>
          ]. Here, our goal is to design a recommendation system which not
only recommends relevant items but also includes opposite views in case the user is interested
to discover new items. A classical NMF predicts the overall rating ^ = . by minimizing
|| −
phenomenon. Hence, in order to estimate  from (, ) such that the system considers both
. ||2. However, the item rating alone is not able to fully consider the polarization
relevance and polarization, we propose to minimize the objective function:
 =  −
′ = ′ −




  = 2(1 −  ) ×  × (− ) + 2  × ′ × (− )
  = 2(1 −  ) ×  × (− ) + 2  × ′ × (− )
min
, 
  = ∑︁ ∑︁ (︁ (1 −  ) × ||  − ||2+
 ∈  ∈
  × || ′ − ||
2
︁)
′ =  −   × (¯ +
′ =  +   × (¯ − 

 )
 )
× Φ + if  ≥ 
× Φ + if  &lt; 
where   is user u’s discovery factor, Φ is item i’s polarization score, computed using
the Polarization Detection Classifier proposed in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">13</xref>
          ],  measures how extreme the diferent
viewpoints are,  is a threshold that indicates which ratings are considered as liked versus
disliked.  ∈ [0, 1] indicates the gap between the two rating extreme ranges for a polarized
item; in other words, it measures how polarized the user population’s ratings are for item . We
use the gap  as the diference between an item’s typical minimum rating when it is liked and
its typical maximum rating when it is disliked.  is the diference between the maximum
and minimum rating that a typical user can provide for any item, using the system’s rating scale.
The more polarized a population gets, the higher  gets.  is a threshold that indicates which
ratings are considered as liked versus disliked. By minimizing the objective function in (1), we
estimate  from (, ) such that the system considers both relevance and polarization, but to
diferent degrees. The first part of the optimization objective is the classical NMF optimization
criterion; while the second part is the counter-polarization component. The intuition behind
the second part is to bring a user and an item closer in the latent space, if the user is interested
in discovering more and the item happens to be polarized. The new incremental stochastic
Gradient Descent update equations at iteration  + 1, after each new input , can be derived
as shown below, where  () are the ratings’ (depolarized ratings’) reconstruction errors.
(1)
(2)
(3)
1: For each user  ∈  :
2: Repeat While  rates unrated items:
4: with the parameter set of  , Φ, 
 
 ⊙ ′   ′ ∈ 
Find  which is the set of items sorted in descending order of predicted rating
Select the top  items from S and recommend them to 
User picks an item ′ randomly and gives it rating ′
        </p>
        <p>where ⊙ is the I/O operator, meaning that user  provides rating ′ for item ′</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. Experiments</title>
      <p>
        For the purpose of evaluation, we resort to a simulation scenario in this preliminary work
similar to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">16</xref>
        ]. We evaluate the performance of our approach in terms of rating prediction
accuracy, using the Mean Squared Error (MSE) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">19</xref>
        ] and the Opposite View Hit Rate (OVHR)
ratio based on the ratio of the number of items from the opposite view to the total number of
recommended items [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">16</xref>
        ]. We consider the following simple environment: Let  = (, , )
be an environment where user  ∈  can rate item  ∈  with rating  ∈  on a scale of 
to . We generate a rating environment with 50 users and 200 items where items are evenly
divided in two opposite viewpoint sets (red items and blue items). Users are also divided into
two groups based on whether they like red or blue items. In order to make the environment
polarized, we assume that user  ∈  likes red items more and user  ∈ 
likes blue items more than red ones. Finally, we generated environment  with diferent values
of polarization gaps and user discovery factors.
      </p>
      <p>We start by showing some experiments that illustrate examples of how an Interactive
Recommender System (IRS) works in environment . In all of the examples, we set the number of
factors in the latent space,  , to 5 and we compute the list of top  = 5 items to be
recommended to each user. The user will give a rating for only one of the selected items at a time. In
each iteration, we measure MSE from the training and testing phases. We also keep track of the
items that a user decided to reacted to by providing a rating.</p>
      <p>Figure 1 shows traces from the interactive recommendation system for user  ∈ ,
which means the user likes red items more than blue items. We generate environment 
considering that the gap  is 2. Figure 1, upper row, shows that NMF is always going to
recommend red items, to which the user had previously shown more interest. Although the red
items are relevant, the user Red is trapped in a filter bubble that does not allow them to explore
any items from the opposite color/view. The second row shows the testing MSE decreases as
the user provides new ratings in each iteration; hence, there are fewer unrated items for the
user. Finally, the last row shows the NMF model’s objective or cost function’s convergence
when using gradient descent optimization, where each line (or colored thread) represents the
decrease of the objective function for an iteration of the interactive recommendation process.</p>
      <p>Figure 2 shows the results of applying our proposed Polarization-aware Recommender
Interactive System (PaRIS) in environment  for user . As we can see, the user gets to see items
from a diferent color/viewpoint even in a very polarized environment. The middle row shows
the testing MSE error for user  where there are some fluctuations in the testing MSE error
which is due to the modification in the main updating function of NMF. Finally, the last row
shows the contrast between the objective function evolution for varying polarization rates,
compared to non polarization. Furthermore the error converges to a smaller value for higher
polarization. We interpret this algorithmically, by the fact that the higher the polarization in
the ratings, the larger the gap (extreme likes and dislikes) between the items’ ratings in the
opposite viewpoints. Hence increased polarization leads to increased separation between the
opposite viewpoint ratings, which, very naturally makes learning the ratings an easier task
from a machine learning perspective.</p>
      <p>We repeat the experiment with  = 2 for two scenarios: (a) All users have the same  , i.e.
  =  ∀ ∈  , where c is a constant ∈ [0, 1]. (b) User u has his/her own unique ,   = 
for user u and   = 0 ∀ ∈  − , where  ∈ [0, 1], is a user defined constant. Then, we
compute  ,   and   in two ways: (a)  : the ratio of number of
items from the opposite view to what the user has picked from the recommendation list, (b)
  : the ratio of number of items recommended to the user from an opposite view.</p>
      <p>Table 1 shows that the higher the user-defined counter-polarization tuning parameter  , the
more they will be recommended items from the opposite view, again as desired by the user. Even
though the traditional NMF-based algorithm achieves good accuracy in rating prediction, it is
not able to recommend any item from the opposite view. In contrast, our proposed algorithm,
PaRIS, recommends significantly more items (  ≤ 0.05) from the opposite view compared to
the baseline approach, for all the degrees of user-defined discovery factors.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. Conclusions</title>
      <p>We proposed a polarization-aware recommender system based on Non-negative Matrix
Factorization that succeeds to cover items from the opposite view after a few iterations and can
broaden the viewpoint spectrum even faster if the user is more interested in discovering items
from diferent viewpoints. Our work is limited by the simulation setting in the experiments,
since inducing polarization and testing diferent new strategies in real life has ethical risks
and legal ramifications. Future work should find a way to conduct tests on real users, after
mitigating the risks involved.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. Acknowledgments References</title>
      <p>This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant IIS-154998.
[1] R. Baeza-Yates, Data and algorithmic bias in the web, in: Proceedings of the 8th ACM</p>
      <p>Conference on Web Science, ACM, 2016, pp. 1–1.
[2] J. Sanz-Cruzado, P. Castells, Enhancing structural diversity in social networks by
recommending weak ties, in: Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on recommender systems,
2018, pp. 233–241.
[3] E. Bakshy, S. Messing, L. A. Adamic, Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion
on facebook, Science 348 (2015) 1130–1132.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>E. Pariser,</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Penguin</source>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Ge</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Zhao</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Zhou</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Pei</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Sun</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Ou</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Y. Zhang,</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Understanding echo chambers in e-commerce recommender systems</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval</source>
          ,
          <year>2020</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>2261</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>2270</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Chitra</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Musco, Analyzing the impact of filter bubbles on social network polarization</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining</source>
          ,
          <year>2020</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>115</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>123</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Nasraoui</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Shafto</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Human-algorithm interaction biases in the big data cycle: A markov chain iterated learning framework</article-title>
          ,
          <source>CoRR abs/1608</source>
          .07895 (
          <year>2016</year>
          ). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1608.07895.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Möller</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Trilling</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Helberger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>B. van Es</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Information, Communication &amp; Society</source>
          <volume>21</volume>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
          <fpage>959</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>977</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Dandekar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Goel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. T.</given-names>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</source>
          <volume>110</volume>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
          <fpage>5791</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5796</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Garimella</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G. D. F.</given-names>
            <surname>Morales</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Gionis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mathioudakis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Balancing opposing views to reduce controversy</article-title>
          ,
          <source>arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00172</source>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. N.</given-names>
            <surname>Cohen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Exploring echo-systems: how algorithms shape immersive media environments</article-title>
          .,
          <source>Journal of Media Literacy Education</source>
          <volume>10</volume>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
          <fpage>139</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>151</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.-A. Stoica</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chaintreau</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Hegemony in social media and the efect of recommendations</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference</source>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>575</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>580</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Badami</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Nasraoui</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Sun</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Shafto</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Detecting polarization in ratings: An automated pipeline and a preliminary quantification on several benchmark data sets</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Big Data (Big Data)</source>
          ,
          <source>2017 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE</source>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Victor</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Cornelis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M. De Cock</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Teredesai</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A comparative analysis of trust-enhanced recommenders for controversial items</article-title>
          .,
          <source>in: ICWSM</source>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Antikacioglu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ravi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Post processing recommender systems for diversity</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining</source>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>707</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>716</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Badami</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Nasraoui</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Shafto</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Prcp:
          <article-title>Pre-recommendation counter-polarization</article-title>
          .,
          <source>in: KDIR</source>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>280</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>287</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Gao</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Do</surname>
          </string-name>
          , W.-T. Fu,
          <article-title>Burst your bubble! an intelligent system for improving awareness of diverse social opinions</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces</source>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>371</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>383</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Tintarev</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Rostami</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Smyth</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Knowing the unknown: visualising consumption blindspots in recommender systems</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing</source>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1396</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1399</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Koren</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Bell</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Volinsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Computer</source>
          <volume>42</volume>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>