Fair Learning for Bias Mitigation and Quality Optimization in Paper Recommendation

Despite frequent double-blind review, systemic biases related to author demographics still disadvantage underrepresented groups. We start from a simple hypothesis: if a post-review recommender is trained with an explicit fairness regularizer, it should increase inclusion without degrading quality. To test this, we introduce Fair-PaperRec, a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) with a differentiable fairness loss over intersectional attributes (e.g., race, country) that re-ranks papers after double-blind review. We first probe the hypothesis on synthetic datasets spanning high, moderate, and near-fair biases. Across multiple randomized runs, these controlled studies map where increasing the fairness weight strengthens macro/micro diversity while keeping utility approximately stable, demonstrating robustness and adaptability under varying disparity levels. We then carry the hypothesis into the original setting, conference data from ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI), Designing Interactive Systems (DIS), and Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI). In this real-world scenario, an appropriately tuned configuration of Fair-PaperRec achieves up to a 42.03% increase in underrepresented-group participation with at most a 3.16% change in overall utility relative to the historical selection. Taken together, the synthetic-to-original progression shows that fairness regularization can act as both an equity mechanism and a mild quality regularizer, especially in highly biased regimes. By first analyzing the behavior of the fairness parameters under controlled conditions and then validating them on real submissions, Fair-PaperRec offers a practical, equity-focused framework for post-review paper selection that preserves, and in some settings can even enhance, measured scholarly quality.

One of the many fairness definitions pursued in recent recommender system research targets mitigating demographic information encoded in model representations. Models optimized for this definition are typically evaluated on how well demographic attributes can be classified given model representations, with the (implicit) assumption that this measure accurately reflects recommendation parity, i.e., how similar recommendations given to different users are. We challenge this assumption by comparing the amount of demographic information encoded in representations with various measures of how the recommendations differ. We propose two new approaches for measuring how well demographic information can be classified given ranked recommendations. Our results from extensive testing of multiple models on one real and multiple synthetically generated datasets indicate that optimizing for fair representations positively affects recommendation parity, but also that evaluation at the representation level is not a good proxy for measuring this effect when comparing models. We also provide extensive insight into how recommendation-level fairness metrics behave for various models by evaluating their performances on numerous generated datasets with different properties.

As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge. Most existing methods follow a ``Paper-to-Paper'' matching paradigm, implicitly representing a reviewer by their publication history. However, effective reviewer matching requires capturing multi-dimensional expertise, and textual similarity to past papers alone is often insufficient. To address this gap, we propose P2R, a training-free framework that shifts from implicit paper-to-paper matching to explicit profile-based matching. P2R uses general-purpose LLMs to construct structured profiles for both submissions and reviewers, disentangling them into Topics, Methodologies, and Applications. Building on these profiles, P2R adopts a coarse-to-fine pipeline to balance efficiency and depth. It first performs hybrid retrieval that combines semantic and aspect-level signals to form a high-recall candidate pool, and then applies an LLM-based committee to evaluate candidates under strict rubrics, integrating both multi-dimensional expert views and a holistic Area Chair perspective. Experiments on NeurIPS, SIGIR, and SciRepEval show that P2R consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Ablation studies further verify the necessity of each component. Overall, P2R highlights the value of explicit, structured expertise modeling and offers practical guidance for applying LLMs to reviewer matching.