What are you optimizing for? Aligning Recommender Systems with Human Values

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10939v1
• Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:52:43 GMT
• Title: What are you optimizing for? Aligning Recommender Systems with Human Values
• Authors: Jonathan Stray, Ivan Vendrov, Jeremy Nixon, Steven Adler, Dylan Hadfield-Menell
• Abstract summary: We describe cases where real recommender systems were modified in the service of various human values. We look to AI alignment work for approaches that could learn complex values directly from stakeholders.
• Score: 9.678391591582582
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We describe cases where real recommender systems were modified in the service of various human values such as diversity, fairness, well-being, time well spent, and factual accuracy. From this we identify the current practice of values engineering: the creation of classifiers from human-created data with value-based labels. This has worked in practice for a variety of issues, but problems are addressed one at a time, and users and other stakeholders have seldom been involved. Instead, we look to AI alignment work for approaches that could learn complex values directly from stakeholders, and identify four major directions: useful measures of alignment, participatory design and operation, interactive value learning, and informed deliberative judgments.

Related papers

• Uncertain Multi-Objective Recommendation via Orthogonal Meta-Learning Enhanced Bayesian Optimization [30.031396809114625]
  We introduce a novel framework that categorizes RS autonomy into five distinct levels, ranging from basic rule-based accuracy-driven systems to behavior-aware, uncertain multi-objective RSs. We propose an approach that dynamically identifies and optimize multiple objectives based on individual user preferences, fostering more ethical and intelligent user-centric recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T08:10:09Z)
• Democratizing Reward Design for Personal and Representative Value-Alignment [10.1630183955549]
  We introduce Interactive-Reflective Dialogue Alignment, a method that iteratively engages users in reflecting on and specifying their subjective value definitions. This system learns individual value definitions through language-model-based preference elicitation and constructs personalized reward models. Our findings demonstrate diverse definitions of value-aligned behaviour and show that our system can accurately capture each person's unique understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:37:01Z)
• MAP: Multi-Human-Value Alignment Palette [22.74688073469946]
  We develop a novel, first-principle approach called Multi-Human-Value Alignment Palette (MAP) MAP navigates the alignment across multiple human values in a structured and reliable way. We conduct a detailed theoretical analysis of MAP by quantifying the trade-offs between values, the sensitivity to constraints, the fundamental connection between multi-value alignment and sequential alignment, and proving that linear weighted rewards are sufficient for multi-value alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T23:16:39Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• Quantifying User Coherence: A Unified Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation Analysis [69.37718774071793]
  This paper introduces novel information-theoretic measures for understanding recommender systems. We evaluate 7 recommendation algorithms across 9 datasets, revealing the relationships between our measures and standard performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T13:02:07Z)
• Improving Content Recommendation: Knowledge Graph-Based Semantic Contrastive Learning for Diversity and Cold-Start Users [5.224122150536595]
  We propose a hybrid multi-task learning approach, training on user-item and item-item interactions. Our approach allows the model to better understand the relationships between entities within the knowledge graph by utilizing semantic information from text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T15:11:00Z)
• Can Foundation Models Watch, Talk and Guide You Step by Step to Make a Cake? [62.59699229202307]
  Despite advances in AI, it remains a significant challenge to develop interactive task guidance systems. We created a new multimodal benchmark dataset, Watch, Talk and Guide (WTaG) based on natural interaction between a human user and a human instructor. We leveraged several foundation models to study to what extent these models can be quickly adapted to perceptually enabled task guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T15:13:49Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties [68.66719970507273]
  Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another. As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out potentially irreducible value conflicts. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:24:59Z)
• Practitioners Versus Users: A Value-Sensitive Evaluation of Current Industrial Recommender System Design [27.448761282289585]
  We focus on five values: recommendation quality, privacy, transparency, fairness, and trustworthiness. Our results reveal the existence and sources of tensions between practitioners and users in terms of value interpretation, evaluation, and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-08T13:31:41Z)
• Fairness by Learning Orthogonal Disentangled Representations [50.82638766862974]
  We propose a novel disentanglement approach to invariant representation problem. We enforce the meaningful representation to be agnostic to sensitive information by entropy. The proposed approach is evaluated on five publicly available datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-12T11:09:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.