Indexes are models: a B-Tree-Index can be seen as a model to map a key to the position of a record within a sorted array, a Hash-Index as a model to map a key to a position of a record within an unsorted array, and a BitMap-Index as a model to indicate if a data record exists or not. In this exploratory research paper, we start from this premise and posit that all existing index structures can be replaced with other types of models, including deep-learning models, which we term learned indexes. We theoretically analyze under which conditions learned indexes outperform traditional index structures and describe the main challenges in designing learned index structures. Our initial results show that our learned indexes can have significant advantages over traditional indexes. More importantly, we believe that the idea of replacing core components of a data management system through learned models has far reaching implications for future systems designs and that this work provides just a glimpse of what might be possible.

Industrial recommender systems deal with extremely large action spaces -many millions of items to recommend. Moreover, they need to serve billions of users, who are unique at any point in time, making a complex user state space. Luckily, huge quantities of logged implicit feedback (e.g., user clicks, dwell time) are available for learning. Learning from the logged feedback is however subject to biases caused by only observing feedback on recommendations selected by the previous versions of the recommender. In this work, we present a general recipe of addressing such biases in a production top-K recommender system at YouTube, built with a policy-gradient-based algorithm, i.e. REINFORCE [48]. The contributions of the paper are: (1) scaling REINFORCE to a production recommender system with an action space on the orders of millions;(2) applying off-policy correction to address data biases in learning from logged feedback collected from multiple behavior policies; (3) proposing a novel top-K off-policy correction to account for our policy recommending multiple items at a time; (4) showcasing the value of exploration. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approaches through a series of simulations and multiple live experiments on YouTube.

Recommender systems traditionally assume that user profiles and movie attributes are static. Temporal dynamics are purely reactive, that is, they are inferred after they are observed, e.g. after a user's taste has changed or based on handengineered temporal bias corrections for movies. We propose Recurrent Recommender Networks (RRN) that are able to predict future behavioral trajectories. This is achieved by endowing both users and movies with a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) [14] autoregressive model that captures dynamics, in addition to a more traditional low-rank factorization. On multiple real-world datasets, our model offers excellent prediction accuracy and it is very compact, since we need not learn latent state but rather just the state transition function.

Recommender systems are one of the most pervasive applications of machine learning in industry, with many services using them to match users to products or information. As such it is important to ask: what are the possible fairness risks, how can we quantify them, and how should we address them?In this paper we offer a set of novel metrics for evaluating algorithmic fairness concerns in recommender systems. In particular we show how measuring fairness based on pairwise comparisons from randomized experiments provides a tractable means to reason about fairness in rankings from recommender systems. Building on this metric, we offer a new regularizer to encourage improving this metric during model training and thus improve fairness in the resulting rankings. We apply this pairwise regularization to a large-scale, production recommender system and show that we are able to significantly improve the system's pairwise fairness.

In this paper, we study counterfactual fairness in text classification, which asks the question: How would the prediction change if the sensitive attribute referenced in the example were different? Toxicity classifiers demonstrate a counterfactual fairness issue by predicting that "Some people are gay" is toxic while "Some people are straight" is nontoxic. We offer a metric, counterfactual token fairness (CTF), for measuring this particular form of fairness in text classifiers, and describe its relationship with group fairness. Further, we offer three approaches, blindness, counterfactual augmentation, and counterfactual logit pairing (CLP), for optimizing counterfactual token fairness during training, bridging the robustness and fairness literature. Empirically, we find that blindness and CLP address counterfactual token fairness. The methods do not harm classifier performance, and have varying tradeoffs with group fairness. These approaches, both for measurement and optimization, provide a new path forward for addressing fairness concerns in text classification.