How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality

被引:81
作者
Ciampaglia, Giovanni Luca [1 ]
Nematzadeh, Azadeh [2 ]
Menczer, Filippo [1 ,2 ]
Flammini, Alessandro [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Network Sci Inst, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Sch Informat Comp & Engn, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
来源
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS | 2018年 / 8卷
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
SOCIAL-INFLUENCE;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-018-34203-2
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Algorithms that favor popular items are used to help us select among many choices, from top-ranked search engine results to highly-cited scientific papers. The goal of these algorithms is to identify high-quality items such as reliable news, credible information sources, and important discoveries-in short, high-quality content should rank at the top. Prior work has shown that choosing what is popular may amplify random fluctuations and lead to sub-optimal rankings. Nonetheless, it is often assumed that recommending what is popular will help high-quality content "bubble up" in practice. Here we identify the conditions in which popularity may be a viable proxy for quality content by studying a simple model of a cultural market endowed with an intrinsic notion of quality. A parameter representing the cognitive cost of exploration controls the trade-off between quality and popularity. Below and above a critical exploration cost, popularity bias is more likely to hinder quality. But we find a narrow intermediate regime of user attention where an optimal balance exists: choosing what is popular can help promote high-quality items to the top. These findings clarify the effects of algorithmic popularity bias on quality outcomes, and may inform the design of more principled mechanisms for techno-social cultural markets.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Taming the Unpredictability of Cultural Markets with Social Influence [J].
Abeliuk, Andres ;
Berbeglia, Gerardo ;
Van Hentenryck, Pascal ;
Hogg, Tad ;
Lerman, Kristina .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 26TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WORLD WIDE WEB (WWW'17), 2017, :745-754
[2]   The Benefits of Social Influence in Optimized Cultural Markets [J].
Abeliuk, Andres ;
Berbeglia, Gerardo ;
Cebrian, Manuel ;
Van Hentenryck, Pascal .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (04)
[3]  
ADLER M, 1985, AM ECON REV, V75, P208
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1989, The Selfish Gene
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Polya Urn Models
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, DOI 10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14127
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Everyone is an influencer: Quantifying influence on twitter, DOI DOI 10.1145/1935826.1935845
[9]   A SIMPLE-MODEL OF HERD BEHAVIOR [J].
BANERJEE, AV .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1992, 107 (03) :797-817
[10]   Emergence of scaling in random networks [J].
Barabási, AL ;
Albert, R .
SCIENCE, 1999, 286 (5439) :509-512