Algorithmic Collective Action in Recommender Systems: Promoting Songs by Reordering Playlists
Authors: Joachim Baumann
Celestine Mendler-Dünner
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 poster (2024)
Keywords: collective action
platform power
sequential recommender systems
transformer models
music recommendation
Primary area: fairness
TL;DR: Small user collectives can effectively promote artists through simple reordering of playlists, leveraging the sequential nature of transformer-based recommendation systems.

Abstract: We investigate algorithmic collective action in transformer-based recommender systems. Our use case is a collective of fans aiming to promote the visibility of an underrepresented artist by strategically placing one of their songs in the existing playlists they control. We introduce two easily implementable strategies to select the position at which to insert the song and boost recommendations at test time. The strategies exploit statistical properties of the learner to leverage discontinuities in the recommendations, and the long-tail nature of song distributions. We evaluate the efficacy of our strategies using a publicly available recommender system model released by a major music streaming platform. Our findings reveal that even small collectives (controlling less than 0.01\% of the training data) can achieve up to $40\times$ more test time recommendations than songs with similar training set occurrences, on average. Focusing on the externalities of the strategy, we find that the recommendations of other songs are largely preserved, and the newly gained recommendations are distributed across various artists. Together, our findings demonstrate how carefully designed collective action strategies can be effective while not necessarily being adversarial.

Algorithmic Collective Action in Recommender Systems: Promoting Songs by Reordering Playlists
Joachim Baumann" University of Zurich baumann@ifi. uzh.
Celestine Mendler-Dünner ELLIS Institute, Tübingen MPI for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen
Tübingen Al Center celestineCtue www.eeettteeelleeeee.....e ellis.eu
Abstract
We investigate algorithmic collective action in wansformer-basee recommender systems. Our use case is a collective of fans aiming to promote the visibility of an underrepresented artist by strategically placing playlists they control. We introduce two easily implementable strategies to select the position which to insert the song and boost recommendations at test time. The strategies exploit statistical properties of the learner to leverage discontinuities in the recommendations, and the long-tail nature of song distributions. We evaluate the efficacy of our strategies using publicly available recommender system model released by major music streaming platform. Our findings reveal that even small collectives (controlling less than 0.01% % of the training data) can achieve up 40x more test time recommendations than songs with similar training set occurrences, on average. Focusing on the extemnaiites of the strategy, we find that the recommendations of other songs are largely preserved, and the newly gained recommendations are distributed across various artists. Together, our findings demonstrate how carefully designed collective action strategies can be effective while not necessarily being adversarial.
of their songs in the existing
Introduction
In the ever-evolving landscape of music discovery, the challenge accessing and sifting through the overwhelming number of tracks released daily has become increasingly difficult. This has resulted in a strong dependence on platforms like Spotify, Deezer, and Apple Music, which distribute and promote music through algorithmic song recommendations. These systems rely historical data to leam user preferences and predict future content consumption [21, 34, 6].
It has been widely documented that music recommendation systems suffer from popularity bias as they tend to concentrate recommendation exposure on a limited fraction artists, often overlooking new and emerging talent [35, 4, 2, 15, 9, 28]. As the success and visibility of artists are deeply influenced by the algorithms of these platforms, this can lead to a considerable imbalance in the music industry [1, 41] and reinforce existing inequalities [50]. Thus, artists have started to fight for more transparency and fairer payments from online streaming services. The "Justice at Spotify" campaign, launched by the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers [54], has been signed by more than 28,000 artists. At the same time, the International Society for Music Information Retrieval has been arguing for promoting the discovery of less popular artists by recommending 'long-tail' items [3], as have other researchers [11, 53, 16, 40].
Work completed while at the Max-Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen.
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2024).

---

Song frequency in test
0%
4%
Collectively promoted
Other
Amp
0%
0%
2%
3%
Song frequency
Figure 1: By strategically choosing the position at which to insert the target song in playlist, collectives can achieve a disproportionally high recommendation frequency relative training set occurrences, compared to naturally occurring songs. Amplification of one corresponds to matching frequencies in train and test.
In this work, we explore algorithmic collective action as an alternative means for emerging artists gain exposure in machine prewengg-ooweed recommender systems by mobilizing their fan base. Algorithmic collective action [24] refers to the coordinated effort of group of platform participants who strategically report the part of the training data they control influence prediction outcomes. Our work is situated in an emerging literature that recognizes data as a powerful lever for users to promote their interests on digital platforms [57, 24].
1.1
Our work
We study algorithmic collective action in transformer- based recommender systems. As a case study, consider the task of automatic playlist continuation (APC), which is at the heart of many music streaming services. APC models take a seed playlist (an ordered list of unique songs) as input and recommend songs follow. They trained the universe of playlists stored the platform. The collective consists platform users who can modify the subset playlists they own. The goal of the collective is promote less popular artist by increasing the recommendations of their songs at test time. To this end, we consider collective action strategies where participants of the collective agree on target song s* strategically place in their playlists.
motivate and discuss two strategies to choose the position of s* within any given playlist. Both strategies are derived from statistical optimality assumption the recommender and do not require knowledge the specifics the model architccture or the model weights. Instead, they use that the model is trained to fit sequential patterns in existing data and build aggregate song statistics that feasible to gather from public information. We empirically test our strategies using an industry-scale APC model that has been deployed to provide recommendations for millions of users Deezer one of the biggest streaming platforms in the world. To train the model, we use the Spotify Million Playlist Dataset, treating each playlist user and randomly sampling fraction to compose the collective.
We find that by strategically choosing the position the target song, collectives can achieve significant over-representation at test time, see Figure for teaser. We experiment with collectives composed of a random sample of users owning between 0.001% and 2% of the training data instances. Interestingly, tiny user collectives, controlling few as 60 playlists, can achieve 25x, referring to the song's 's recommendation frequency relative to the training frequency. This is 40x more than average song occurring at the same frequency in the training data. In contrast, placing the song in a fixed position every playlist is largely ineffective.
amplification of up to
Our strategy satisfies a strict authenticity constraint and thus preserves user experience at training time by design. Interestingly, we find that also at test time recommendations are largely preserved; not only on aggregate but also for members of the collective. As consequence, the strategies come with small externalities for users, and at the same time, they also have relatively small effect on model perfor- mance. For large collectives controlling 3% of the playlists, the effect corresponds to every target

---

song recommendation replacing an otherwise relevant song in less than 15% of the cases, leaving other recommendations unaltered. Thus, in the hypothetical case where the promoted song is indeed rele- vant, this could lead to an overall gain in more than 85% of the cases, even though the total number of test-time recommendations fixed. Lastly, we show that the newly gained recommendations are taken from artists of diverse popularity without any indication that a specific artist suffers disproportionally.
Taken together, our work demonstrates a first example of collective action in sequential recommender systems. We show how collective action goals can be achieved while largely preserving service quality and user experience. The feasibility of such strategies raises many interesting questions. challenges, and opportunities for future work.
1.2 Related work
The fairnsss of recommendation systems on online platforms remains a pressing issue for both content
consumers and producers [10, 32, 19, 26]-see see Zehlike et al. [61] for a detailed overview. Several recent works study individual strategic users attempting to influence their own recommendations [5, 25, 12, 13J. Other works consider adding antidote data to fight polarization and unfairness [42, 18].
Beyond recommender systems, a related line of work centers the users in the study of machine learning systems. Vincent and Hecht [55] call for conscious data contribution, Vincent et al. [56] discuss data strikes, and Vincent et al. [57] emphasize the potential of data levers as a means to gain back power over platforms. Hardt et al. [24] introduce the framework of algorithmic collective action for formally studying coordinated strategies of users against algorithmic systems. They empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of collective action in correlating signal function with a target label. Sigg et al. [46] inspect collective action at inference time in combinatorial systems. Complementing these findings, we demonstrate that collective action can be effective even without control over samples at inference time. We highlight so far understudied dimension of algorithmic collective action by discussing and illuminating the externalities of algorithmic collective action strategies.
At technical level, our findings most closely relate to shilling attacks, or more broadly, data poisoning attacks [c.f., 49]. Shilling attacks are usually realized by injecting fake user profiles and ratings in order to push the predictions of some targeted items [45, 47]. Due to the fraudulent nature of these attacks, there are little design restrictions on the profiles, and they often come with considerable negative effects for the firm [38, 20]. Data poisoning attacks in recommender systems predominantly focus on collaborative filtering-bsser models, with few exceptions; Zhang et al. [62] propose a reinforcement learning-basee based framework to promote target item, Yue et al. [58] provide solution to extract black-box model's s weights through API queries to then generate fake users for promoting an item, and Yue et al. [59] propose injecting fake items into seemingly real item sequences (at inference time and without retraining) with a gradient-guidee algorithm, requiring full access to the model weights. Taking the perspective of collective action, we focus on easy-to to-implement strategies that require minimal knowledge of the model and operate under an authenticity constraint to preserve the utility of altered playlists while seamlessly integrating into natural interaction with the platform.
Further, our work pertains to a broader scholarly literature interested in improving labor conditions for gig workers on digital platforms [e.g., 29, 52], optimizing long-term social welfare in online systems [33], and understanding dynamics in digital marketplaces [27]. The type of strategic data modification we consider falls under the umbrella of adversarial feature feedback loops [39]. Taking advantage of collective strategies to change model outcomes more broadly has been studied in tabular data [17], computer vision [43], and recently in generative Al [44].
2 Preliminaries on automatic playlist continuation
We use automatic playlist continuation (APC) as a running example of a sequential recommendation task. APC forms the backbone of major streaming platforms, such as Spotify and Deezer. To formally define the recommendation task, let S = {$1: .... sn) } denote the universe of songs, where n 2 1 denotes the number of unique songs. A playlist p is composed of an ordered list of songs selected from S without replacement. Given seed playlist p. the firm's goal is to predict follow-up songs that the user likely listens to. We consider a top- K recommender system that outputs a personalized ordered list of K > 1 songs. We write Rec (p) for the set of K songs recommended for a seed playlist p.
3

---

Cumulative share of recommedatio
Toop Gave Recormmaatio Equllt
Number of wange (log state)
0.8
10P
0.6
0.2
10
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
10000
20000
Cumulative share of artists
Frequincy in Spotiff million playiit dataset
Figure 2: Imbalance in recommendation distribution. (left) The Lorenz curve shows that 80% of all recommendations are concentrated among just 10% of artists. (right) The Spotify track frequency distribution shows the long tail of song frequencies in user-generated playlists: close to 50% of tracks in playlists occur only once.
2.1 Transformer-based recommender
Over the past years, most large platforms have shifted from relying collaborative filtering-based models for APC to building deep learning-based recommenders that account for sequential and cession-based information [21, 31J.
34]. In this work, we focus transformer-based recommender systems that posit the following structure: Each song mapped to song embedding vector h, o(s), where á denotes the embedding function. Each playlist p [$1, $2; .2..... sr. is mapped to an embedding vector h, by aggregating the embeddings of the songs contained the playlist as hp g(hs, have length L smaller than the attention window for the purpose of exposition. At inference time, the recommendation of the next K songs for a given playlist p is determined by evaluating the similarity between the playlist seed p and all potential follow up songs E S \ as
), where is sequence-aware attention function. We assume all playlists
SIM(s, p) == (h,, hp)
(1)
Then, the K songs with the largest similarity value recommended in descending order of similarity. We denote the set of recommended songs as
Reck (p)
arg max IS
Σ SIM(s. p).
The embeddings & and the attention function g are parameterized by neural networks. They are trained from existing serereeeeated playlists in self-supervised manner by repeatedly splitting playlists into a seed context and a target sequence and employing a contrastive loss function for training.
Statistical abstraction. We do not assume the collective has knowledge of the parameters of either á or g. Instead, the design of the strategy builds on the assumption that sequential, transformer based models are trained such that SIM(s, p) is large for songs that frequently follow context p in the training data, and small otherwise. This approximately is robust to nuances in hyperparameter choices architecture design and applies to any sufficiently expressive and well trained model.
2.2 Typical imbalances in recommendations
On today's music streaming platforms, a small number of artists receive the vast majority of recommendations, while the majority receive few none. This imbalance is illustrated by the Lorenz curve in Figure 2, which is based on recommendations derived from the Deezer model on the Spotify MPD dataset (see Section 4). The Gini coefficient measuring inequality corresponds to 0.87. Streaming and radio statistics reveal an even more severe imbalance: the top 1% newly released songs receive 99.999. of radio plays and 90% of streams go to just 1 1% of artists [9].
Considering Figure we can also see that songs with high prevalence the training data are recommended disproportionately often at test time compared to their training set frequency (referring to the slope of ~1. of the blue point cloud). This gain exposure through the recommender comes at the expense of many low- www-frequeccy songs that receive recommendations at test time,

---

further amplifying existing imbalances. Considering Spotify's substantial power to influence song consumption among platform users [1], withholding initial exposure for these songs limits their potential to reach broader audience, significantly impacting artist's career. In this work, we focus on collective efforts to boost recommendations for one of these underrepresented songs.
3 Algorithmic collective action for promoting songs
We build on the framework of Hardt et [24] and consider collectives that are composed of fraction E (0, 1] of randomly sampled users on the platform. We assume each user controls single playlist. Members of the collective can strategically manipulate their playlists. We use ju(-) to describe the strategy of mapping original playlist to modified playlist.
Success and amplification. Let Po denote the distribution over playlists. The goal of the collective is to increase the exposure of a target song 8" for randomly sampled playlist from Po at test time. We measure the success of collective action as
S(a) == EpwP, 1 (s* E Recx (p)]
The recommender system Reck is trained on partially manipulated training dataset D, composed of N samples from Po. among which aN have been transformed under ju.
We particularly interested in measuring the effectiveness of strategy relative the effort of the collective. Therefore, we define amplification (Amp) as the fraction of newly gained target recommendations test time divided by the fraction of manipulated playlists in the training set:
Amp(a)= = - (S(a) - S(0)
44
An amplification of 0 means that the strategy ineffective, an amplification of means that the song frequency in the training set is proportionally represented in the model's s predictions, and an amplification larger than means that collective action achieves disproportionate influence on the recommender. In the following, we choose a song s" that does not currently appear in the training data, hence S(0)= 0.
3.1 Authenticity constraint
Participants of the collective are users of the platform. We design collective action strategies under the following authenticity constraint, not to compromise user experience:
Definition (Authenticity constraint). We say a strategy p - p' is authentic iff' the Levenshtein distance between p and p' ((P) satisfies Lev(p, p') < for any p.
The Levhenstein distance [30], also known edit distance in information theory, counts the number of operations needed to transform one sequence into another. The song insertion strategy we propose in this work is one concrete instantiation of μ that satisfies this constraint. More specifically, our strategy consists of inserting an agreed-upon target song s* at specific position in every playlist p. In contrast, existing adversarial strategies typically perform larger modifications to playlists and would not satisfy this constraint [62, 58].
3.2 Algorithmic lever
The algorithmic lever of the collective is to strategically choose, for each playlist, the position it at which to insert the target song. Under our probabilistic assumption about the learner, strategically placing s* after p means that the similarity between p and s* is increased. Thus, by choosing the index i", the collective targets context P;- referring to the sequence of songs 8, in up to index j i. Recall that the collective aims to be among the top songs with high frequency over randomly sampled context at test time. Our strategies exploit two different algorithmic levers towards this goal: Indirectly targeting Clusters of similar contexts [InClust) or Directly targeting Low- Low-Frequency contexts (DirLoF). Pscudocode for the two strategies can be found in Figure 3.
5

---

Strategies: (a) InClust and (b) DirLoF
Input: s" collectively owned playlists D = {pI P2.,,,..., Pn S D
Coordination step:
2: (a) rd for every in D* pool information to count song frequencies in D
3: (b) q" f- for every in D estimate training set song frequency by gathering side information.
4: for all playlists p E D do
5: Define anchor syt find song So E p such that (a) 1 2 r* Vs E p or (b) 9 S q YsEp
6: Insert target song; insert s" (a) before so or (b) after $o
7: Store modified playlist
8: end for
Sp-1
$g
$o
Pf
Pd
PF
(a) InClust
(b) DirLoF
Figure 3: Song insertion strategies, pseudocode and illustration.
Concentrating effort. Inclusion in the set Recx (p) leads to a song's recommendation for context p at test time. In turn, being ranked in position K does not yield any recommendations, Instead, the probability mass in the tails reallocated to the top songs at test time. This discontinuity can be exploited by the members of the collective target specific contexts in a coordinated fashion to increase the likelihood of inclusion. Compared to random song placement, the collective can increase the mass on particular context by factor of L. The InClust strategy implements way for selecting contexts to target, projecting this intuition from the non-parametric setting to the embedding space of the recommender. Namely, systematically places s* directly before each occurrence of a popular song $o. In that way, it targets the region in the context embedding space around he, in a coordinated fashion. To implement this strategy, the collective repeatedly determines the most frequent song in their playlists, places s* before every occurrence of this song, and then repeats this with the remaining playlists until all of them are used.
Strategically exploiting overrepresentation. An alternative lever the collective has available to strategically target contexts that are overrepresented among the playlists the collective controls. Meaning that the frequency of the context among the playlists owned by the collective is larger than the overall frequency in the training data due to finite sample artifacts. The DirLoF strategy aims to identify such contexts by targeting infrequently occurring songs and exploiting the long-tail nature of the overall song frequency distribution (see Figure 2). The core intuition is that if they manage to target low-frt www.fueuueccy contexts, single song placement might be sufficient to overpower existing signals. To identify cow-frequency contexts, the collective uses the frequency of the last song proxy. For each playlist, selects the anchor songs sn with the smallest overall song frequency and places s" right after 8g-
3.3 Obtaining song statistics
The InClust strategy targets high-freeuency contexts, whereas the DirLoF strategy targets low- frequency contexts. However, there is an important difference when implementing the strategies. InClust can be implemented from only statistics obtained from the songs in playlists the collective owns; all it requires is participants to set up infrastructure for pooling this information, either through an app. an online service, or other means. In contrast, to effectively implement the DirLoF strategy, the collective needs statistics about the full training data to identify the songs that are least popular overall. However, they typically do not have direct access to this information. Instead, as a proxy, they can leverage publicly available seerrgeeeeated playlists, which are often accessible through official APIs (e.g., Spotify). Additionally, scraping external data sources can provide supplementary information. We evaluate the use of scraped song streams in Section 4.2.

---

35
Collective Strategy
30
Rybaad (full information)
Dizbof (fall information)
Inchest
Ampliiictton
Fandon
AtTbeEod
15
10
5-
2
(log scale)
Figure 4: Success of our collective action strategies. For tiny collectives DirLoF achieves an amplification of up to 25x while uncoordinated strategies (Random, AtTheEnd) are mostly ineffective. For larger collectives, InClust outperforms DirLoF. Amplification significantly exceeds 1, implying a disproportional test-time effect due to targeted song placement.
4 Empirical evaluation
We evaluate our collective action strategies against public version of Deezer's transformers- -based APC solution that "has been deployed all users" [7. p. 472]. To train the model, we use the Spotify Million Playlist Dataset (MPD), which is currently the largest public dataset for APC [14]. It contains one million playlists generated by US Spotify users between 2010 and 2017, with an average length of 66.35 tracks from nearly 300,000 unique artists.
Model training and evaluation. We use the standard methodologies used in APC for model training and testing. 2 We start by randomly selecting 20,000 playlists to build and validation set of equal sizes. The remaining 980,000 playlists are used for training the model. The collective intervenes by strategically modifying an a fraction of the playlists composing the training and validation set. We consider collectives of size a E [0.00001, 0.02] which corresponds to 10 to 20000 playlists. For evaluation on the test set, every playlist p is split into seed context and masked end. The length of the seed context is chosen randomly in [1. 10] for each playlist and models are evaluated by comparing the model's 's recommendations based on the seed playlist to the masked ground truth. We employ five-fold valisaial,,,,ion,, using different random seeds for sampling the playlists designated for training, validation, and testing, as well as for selecting the subset controlled by the collective. We use bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (CI) over folds when reporting results.
Baselines. We consider four baseline strategies to compare with our collective strategies, each performing the same number of target song insertions. The Random strategy inserts s" at Random position the playlist, Insertêi inserts the song always at position in every playlist, the AtTheEnd strategy places s* as the last song of the playlist, and Random@i-j inserts s* random position between indices and j. Unlike our collective strategies, these baselines do not require coordination among participants beyond the shared goal of promoting s"
4.1 Success of collective action
We start by evaluating the success of the proposed strategies, assuming full information about song frequencies in the training set to illustrate the potential. In Figure 4, we plot the amplification for different a. In particular, we observe that strategic song placement allows very small collectives (a < 0.1%) to be successful, whereas Random or fixed placement of s* is ineffective.
For a = 0.025%, the DirLoF strategy achieves amplification of up to 25. In contrast to an average song that naturally occurs 0.025% of the playlists, the number of recommendations is 40x larger, as these lowffrequency songs are typically ignored by the recommender. This suggests that collective action could make tremendous difference for these artists: suppose an artist's song streamed
TThe code is available https: https:////tthtte httppp////gtttbb.co//ooo/am////p http///w.....oooaaa//////////ooe
7

---

100
Anp in % of Amp with full information
Collective Stratagy
information
18 trin dats
25
Scripoi stremm counts
0-
scale)
Figure 5: Information bottleneck. The empirical amplification of the DirLoF strategy decreases with worse song statistics but scraped song streaming counts can serve as a practical solution.
10,000 times, yielding revenue of $40 at a royalty rate of $0.004 per stream [31]; an amplification of 25 would hypothetically increase this revenue to $1, 000. While this example is purely illustrative (as actual royalties depend on the platform and payment model used), emphasizes the link between recommendations and potential revenue.
For collective sizes of effectively compete with existing signals associated with a cluster of similar context embeddings. As the strategy can target several such clusters at the same time, amplification increases with though with diminishing returns, achieving Amp = 10 for a zs 2%. From Figure 1, we can see that in the regime of 2% training data frequency, typical song enjoys amplification of 1.8.
0.1% the InClust starts being effective, it has enough mass to
We also observe that the success of the random strategy increases with the collective size. This implics that even minimal coordination, in which members agree to all insert the same song s*, independent of the playlist they own, can already lead to significant amplification. Amplification values for the other baselines inserting s" fixed position are all close 0 (see Table in Appendix C.4).
Robustness to hyperparameters. Our strategies are designed based on a statistical intuition of sequential generation and should not be sensitive to specifics of the model architecture. We demonstrate the robustness with additional experiments where we vary the hyperparameters of the model (see Table 2 in Appendix C.5). However, the design of our strategies relies on the assumption that the model approximates the conditional probabilities the training data sufficiently well. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the strategy decreases if model training is stopped early (see Table 3).
Hybrid id strategy. Building on these observations, we construct a hybrid strategy that interleaves the two approaches by first using InClust target indirect anchors that appear at least À times in the collective and then deviates to DirLoF for playlists where no such anchor is present (we use À = 10). This corresponds to the dashed line in Figure 4. We come back this strategy in Section 4.3.
4.2 DirLoF strategy with approximate song statistics
The DirLoF strategy critically relies on training data song frequency estimates to determine the low-frequency anchor songs. We investigate the strategy's 's success with partially available song information in Figure We find that if a collective of size a 1% has access 1% of the remaining training data they do not control, they can already achieve x 30% of the amplification in the full information setting, with 10% of the data, it is > 50% of the achievable amplification.
By default, user-genert user-generated playlists on streaming platforms are often publicly accessible, enabling researchers to gather song frequency data through API calls. However, the amount of training data that can be aggregated is limited by the platform's 's API rate limits. Alternatively, proxy statistics can be used to increase the fraction of songs for which estimates are available. To illustrate the feasibility of this approach, we implemented scraper to obtain current stream counts from Spotify. Although these counts are visible in the Spotify browser version, they are not accessible through the Spotify API. The scraped data reflects song popularity as of 2024, which is not ideal given our experiment relies on the much older Spotify MPD dataset (collected between 2010 and 2017). Nonetheless, these counts serve effective proxies, as Figure 5 impressively shows.
8

---

NDCG
R- precision
#C
0.005
0.01
Performatce loss
0.000
0.005
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
Randon
Randon (s" relevant)
Conservative adversarial baseline (Randon)
Rybrid
Bybrid relevaut)
Coneevattvv adversariol baseliue (lybrid)
Figure 6: Effect of algorithmic collective action on recommendation performance. Performance loss relative to training clean data for the hybrid random strategies (solid lines), conservative adver- sarial baseline (dashed lines), and an optimistic scenario where s* is treated as relevant (dotted lines).
Despite the temporal gap, a collective of size a 1% can achieve over 85% of the amplification achievable in a full-information setting simply by using 2024 stream data to approximate past popularity levels. Even smaller collective of a 0.1% can reach about 50% of the amplification seen in the full-information scenario. In practice, scraped stream counts are likely to be more accurate proxies, as models are typically trained on more recent data. However, within the scope of our study, it remains impossible to access historical stream counts that would reflect popularity as of the time the playlists were originally generated. Thus our proof of concept should be seen as a lower bound.
4.3 Internalities and externalities of algorithmic collective action
We now inspect the effect of our strategies on other participants in the system, including the firm, other artists, and the members of the collective. For this investigation, we focus on the hybrid strategy.
First, we gauge the impact of collective action on the firm. This helps us understand the overall quality degradation of the service and the incentives the firm to protect against collective action. We compare the performance under a recommender trained on the clean data and recommender trained on the manipulated data. Figure shows the corresponding loss in performance due to collective action for three different evaluation metrics. We find that our strategy (solid lines) only affects the recommender's performance marginally. We also show conservative adversarial baseline (dashed lines), which simulates scenario where successful collective action results in the first relevant item in playlist recommendations being replaced by the target song while leaving other recommendations unaltered. The considerably larger performance loss of this baseline indicates that our strategy only rarely affects relevant songs. Finally, as a thought experiment, consider s* relevant recommendation (dotted lines). Then, collective action even enhances the system's performance. This reference is meant to illustrate an optimistic scenario where collective action helps the recommender detect underrepresented but emerging and popular artists.
Second, we inspect the effect of collective action on other artists. To this end, Figure 7 depicts the change in recommendations for individual songs of different popularity. Songs are binned by frequency and the bars indicate variation across songs. The star shows the target song 8", and the corresponding increase in recommendations We see that recommendations replaced by the target song seem to span songs of all popularity levels. In particular, our strategy does not harm specific songs artists disproportionally and, as intended, has by far the largest effect the targeted song s*.
Finally, we focus on the experience for participants who listen the playlists. At training time our strategies are designed to only ask for minimal modifications with the goal to preserve user experience for members of the collective. We envision this be an important factor for incentivizing participation in practice. Non- nonn-prticipatinn individuals are not affected at this stage. At test time, we find that user recommendations are largely preserved for both participating and non-participating individuals. More precisely, participating in collective action does not deteriorate the fraction of relevant songs participants get recommended, i.e., performance remains equivalent across all three recommendation quality metrics (see Figure 13 in Appendix C.6).

---

Colecttvey promoted [Rybrid]
600
Other
400
ARt
200
200
0.0
0.02
0.03
0.04
Song frequency in train
Figure 7: Impact of collective action on other songs. We use a 1% to obtain an upper bound on the effect. AR denotes the change in the number of recommendations for song due to collective action. Songs are sorted by their training set frequency and aggregated into 50 evenly spaced bins, whose means represented by the blue dots with 95% CI.
Conclusion
This work studies how collective action strategies can empower participants exert a targeted influence on platform-deployee based APC model, we demonstrate how strategically inserting a single song within randomly sampled playlists in the training data, can effectively increase recommendations of that song. Intriguingly, we find that the strategy only minimally interferes with service quality, and the recommendations for other users on the platform are largely preserved.
algorithms. By experimenting with an industry-scale transformer-
The proposed concept of participating in collective action to steer recommender system outcomes is grounded in the idea that users on online platforms should leave their digital traces more consciously, Thereby, their consumption behavior functions a lever to reclaim some control over the data that platforms use to predict and recommend future content. Our emphasis on authenticity stands in clear contrast to adversarial machine learning techniques, which are often artificially designed and sometimes malicious in intent.
While altering single playlist alone has little impact, the true power of algorithmic collective action lies in mobilizing a sufficiently large number of participants around a shared objective. This allows underrepresented artists gain visibility through coordination. In case, coordination corresponds to agreeing on a target song and an insertion procedure. The actual implementation of the strategy possible with very limited technical skills and knowledge of the algorithm. We demonstrate how information for setting the parameters of the strategy can effectively be gathered using web scraping techniques. What leave for future work is the actual implementation of app to orchestrate collective action and share all the relevant information with the participants.
Our work suggests widely unexplored design space for effective collective action strategies that differ from typical adversarial data poisoning attacks [c.f. 49, 62, 58, 59]. They can offer powerful data lever to counter existing power imbalances [56, 57], and community-
approach to partic- ipatory AI [8]. Thus, understanding the role of economic power [23, 22), formalizing incentives [37], well quantifying long-ted terg-termmm payoffs, dynamics, and equilibria, under collective action promises to be a fruitful direction for future work.
Limitations and potential for misuse
Grounding algorithmic collective action means identifying both its opportunities and challenges. The power that arises from gaining control over the learning algorithm through collective action can also be abused by individuals controlling a substantial number of playlists. Instead of collective goals, these individuals could leverage similar methods to pursue individualistic goals, creating a different incentive structure and potentially posing risk to the system. Similarly, popular artists could use our strategy to gain additional exposure and reinforce inequalities among artists. Thus, incentive structures will crucially determine the desirability of the resulting market outcome. Designing larger-scale collective action strategies that promote fairness and equity online platforms as well as mechanisms that disincentivize malicious use remains a crucial open question.
10

---

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Moritz Hardt for many insightful and formative discussions throughout the course of this work. We would also like to thank Mila Gorecki, Ricardo Dominguez-Olmede Ana- Andreea Stoica and André Cruz for invaluable feedback on the manuscript, and Olawale Salaudeen, Florian Dorner, Stefania Ionescu and Tijana Zmic for helpful feedback on earlier versions of this work. Celestine Mendler-Dünner acknowledges financial support from the Hector foundation.
References
[1] L. Aguiar and J. Waldfogel. Platforms, power, and promotion: Evidence from spotify playlists. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 69(3):653-69 2021.
[2] C. Bauer. Allowing for equal opportunities for artists in music recommendation. In Proceedings of the Ist Workshop on Human-Centric Music Information Research Systems, pages 16-18, 2019.
[3] C. Bauer. Report the ISMIR 2020 special session: how do we help artists? ACM SIGIR Forum, 54(2), 2020.
[4] C. Bauer, M. Kholodylo, and C. Strauss. Music recommender systems; challenges and opportu- nities for non-superstar artists. In 30th Bled eConference, pages 21-32, 2017.
[5] O. Ben-Porat and M. Tennenholtz. A game-theoretic approach to recommendation systems with strategic content providers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31, 2018.
[6] W. Bendada, T. Bontempelli, M. Morlon, B. Chapus, T. Cador, Bouabça, and G. Salha-Galvan Track Mix Generation on Music Streaming Services Using Transformers. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1221115, 2023.
[7] W. Bendada, G. Salha-Galvan, T. Bouabça, and T. Cazenave. A Scalable Framework for Automatic Playlist Continuation on Music Streaming Services. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 464-474 2023.
[8] A. Birhane, W. Isaac, V. Prabhakaran, M. Diaz, M. C. Elish, I. Gabriel, and S. Mohamed. Power to the people? opportunities and challenges for participatory ai. In ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 2022.
[9] E. Blake. Data shows 90 percent of streams go to the top 1 percent of artists, 2020. https: https//ttnnnnoooo////eeeeeeeeeee http////wwe/ooo---eereeeet-e-ee wwwprrreentstteemmmngo-55500000o / www.rrollingson.. cwm/pro/eeoooccccccc
[10] R. Burke. Multisided fairess for recommendation. ArXiv preprint arXiv: (tt::::777000.0 2017.
[11] Ò. Celma. Music Recommendation and Discovery: The Long Tail, Long Fail, and Long Play in the Digital Music Space. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.
[12] S. H. Cen, A. Ilyas, J. Allen, H. Li, D. Rand, and A. Madry. Measuring strategization in recom- mendation: Users adapt their behavior shape future content. Arxiv preprint Ttl.:2405.0559 2023.
[13] S. H. Cen, A. Ilyas, and A. Madry. User strategization and trustworthy algorithms. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2312. 17666, 2023.
[14] C.W.. Chen, P. Lamere, M. Schedl, and H. Zamani. Recsys Challenge 2018: Automatic Music Playlist Continuation. In ACM Conference Recommender Systems, pages 527-528, 2018.
[15] M. P. Coelho and Z. Mendes. Digital music and the "death of the long tail". Journal of Business Research, 101:454-460, 2019.
[16] S. Craw, B. Horsburgh, and S. Massie. Music recommendation: Audio neighbourhoods to discover music in the long tail. In Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, pages 73-87. Springer International Publishing, 2015.

---

[17] E. Creager and R. Zemel. Online algorithmic recourse by collective action. ICML Workshop on Algorithmic Recourse, 2023.
[18] M. Fang, Liu, M. Momma, and Sun. Fairroad: Achieving fairesss for recommender systems with optimized antidote data. In ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, page 173-184, 2022.
[19] A. Ferraro, X. Serra, and C. Bauer. What is fair? exploring the artists' perspective on the fairness of music streaming platforms. In Human-Computer Interaction, volume 12933, pages 562-584, 2021.
[20] I. Gunes, C. Kaleli, A. Bilge, and H. Polat. Shilling attacks against recommender systems: comprehensive survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 42:767-799, 2014.
[21] C. Hansen, C. Hansen, I. Maystre, R. Mehrotra, B. Brost, Tomasi, and M. Lalmas. Contextual and sequential user embeddings for large-scale music recommendation. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, page 53-62, 2020.
[22] M. Hardt and C. Mennler-Dünnne Performative prediction: Past and future. ArXiv preprint arXiv:23 0w..11...6660 16008, 2023.
[23] M. Hardt, M. Jagadeesan, and C. Mendler-Dünner, Performative Power. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022.
[24] M. Hardt, E. Mazumdar, C. Geender--ünnnes and T. Zmnc. Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202, pages 12570-12586, 2023.
[25] A. Haupt, D. Madeilld-Menell, and C. Podimata. Recommending to strategic users. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2302.066552 2023.
[26] S. lonescu, A. Hannak, and N. Pagan. Group fairness for content creators: the role of human and algorithmic biases under popularity-basee recommendations. In ACM Conference Recommender Systems, page 863-870, 2023.
[27] M. Jagadeesan, M. I. Jordan, and N. Haghtalab. Competition, alignment, and equilibria in digital marketplaces. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(5):5689-5694 2023.
[28] D. Jannach, L. Lerche, Gedikli, and G. Bonnin. What recommenders recommend an analysis of accuracy, popularity, and sales diversity effects. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, pages 25-37. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
[29] M. H. Jarrahi and W. Sutherland. Algorithmic management and algorithmic competencies: Understanding and appropriating algorithms in gig work. In Information in Contemporary Society, pages 578-589, 2019.
[30] V. I. Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10:707, 1966.
[31] L. Marshall. 'let's keep music special. spsotify': on-demand streaming and the controversy over artist royalties. Creative Industries Journal, 8(2): 177-1997, 2015.
[32] R. Mchrotra. J. McInerney H. Bouchard, M. Lalmas, and F. Diaz. Towards fair market- place: Counterfactual evaluation of the trade-off between relevance, fairness & satisfaction in recommendation systems. In ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, page 2243-2251 2018
[33] M. Mladenov, E. Creager, O. Ben-Porat, K. Swersky, R. Zemel, and C. Boutilier. Optimizing long-term social welfare in recommender systems: constrained matching approach. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020.
[34] D. Moor, Y. Yuan, R. Mehrotra, Z. Dai, and M. Lalmas. Exploiting sequential music preferences via optimisation- sequencing. ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, page 4759-4765, 2023.
12

---

[35] P. M. Napoli. Requiem for the long tail: Towards political economy of content aggregation and fragmentation. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 12(3):341-356) 2016.
[36] S. Oh, B. Ustun, J. McAuley, and S. Kumar. Rank list sensitivity of recommender systems interaction perturbations. In ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, page 1584-1594, 2022.
[37] M. Olson. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, 1965.
[38] M. O'Mahony, N. Hurley, N. Kushmerick, and G. Silvestre. Celomenditveroommenadtioooooo A robustness analysis. ACM Trans. Internet Technol., 4(4):344-377, 2004.
[39] N. Pagan, J. Baumann, E. Elokda, G. De Pasquale, S. Bolognani, and A. Hannák. A classification of feedback loops and their relation to biases in automated decision-making systems. ACM Conference Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Oplimization, 2023.
[40] L. Porcaro, Gómez, and C. Castillo. Assessing the impact of music recommendation diversity on listeners: A longitudinal study. ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst., 2(1), 2024.
[41] R. Prey, M. Esteve Del Valle, and L. Zwerwer. Platform pop: disentangling spotify's inter- mediary role in the music industry. Information, Communication & Soccity, 25(1):74-92, 2022.
[42] B. Rastegarpanah, K. P. Gummadi, and M. Crovella. Fighting fire with fire: Using antidote data to improve polarization and fairesss of recommender systems. In ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, page 231-239, 2019.
[43] A. Shafahi, W. R. Huang, M. Najibi, O. Suciu, C. Studer, T. Dumitras, and T. Goldstein. Poison frogs! targeted clean-label poisoning attacks on neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31, 2018.
[44] S. Shan, J. Cryan, E. Wenger, H. Zheng, R. Hanocka, and B. Y. Zhao. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by Text-to-Image models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 2187-2204, 2023.
[45] M. Si and Q Li. Shilling attacks against collaborative recommender systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53:291-319, 2020.
[46] D. Sigg, M. Hardt, and C. Mendler-Dünner Decline now: A combinatorial model for algorithmic collective action. ArXiv preprint S.Ii::2410.12633 2024.
[47] A. P. Sundar, F. Li, X. Zou, T. Gao, and E. D. Russomanno. their detection traits: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 8:171703-171715, 2020.
Understanding shilling attacks and
[48] D. Thain, T. Tannenbaum, and M. Livny. Distributed computing in practice: the condor experience. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 17(2-4):323-356, 2005.
[49] Z. Tian, L. Cui, Liang, and S. Yu. comprehensive survey on poisoning attacks and countermeasures in machine learning. ACM Compur. Surv., 55(8), 2022.
[50] T. Tofalvy and J. Koltai. "Splendid Isolation": The reproduction of music industry inequalities in Spotify's recommendation system. New Media & Society, 25(7):1580-1604, 2023.
[51] F. Tomasi, J. Cauteruccio, S. Kanoria, K. Ciosek, M. Rinaldi, and Z. Dai. Automatic music playlist generation via simulation-basel reinforcement learning. In ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, page 4948-4957, 2023.
[52] C. Toxtli and S. Savage. Designing Al Tools to Address Power Imbalances in Digital Labor Platforms, pages 121-137. Springer International Publishing, 2023.
[53] D. Turnbull, L. Barrington, and G. Lanckriet. Five approaches to collecting tags for music, In ISMIR, 2008
13

---

[54] Union of Musicians and Allied Workers. weareumaw. tetttiiceeat-sttiie
Justice at Spotify, mar 2021. URL https://
[55] N. Vincent and B. Hecht. Can "Conscious Data Contribution" Help Users to Exert "Data Leverage" Against Technology Companies? Proc. ACM Hum. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 5, 2021.
[56] N. Vincent, B. Hecht, and S. Sen. "Data Strikes": Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Form of Collective Action Against Technology Companies. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 1931-1943, 2019.
[57] N. Vincent, H. Li, N. Tilly, Chancellor, and B. Hecht. Data Leverage: Framework for Empowering the Public in Its Relationship with Technology Companies. In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 215-227, 2021.
[58] Yue, 7. He, Zeng, and McAuley. Black-box attacks on sequential recommenders via data-free model extraction. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, page 44-54, 2021.
[59] Z. Yue, H. Zeng, Z. Kou, L. Shang, and D. Wang. Defending cdbstitution-baseed profile pollution attacks on sequential recommenders. ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, page 59-70, 2022.
[60] H. Zamani, M. Schedl, P. Lamere, and C.-W. Chen. An Analysis of Approaches Taken in the ACM RecSys Challenge 2018 for Automatic Music Playlist Continuation. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 10(5), 2019.
[61] M. Zehlike, K. Yang, and J. Stoyanovich. Fairness in ranking, part II: Learning-to-ram and recommender systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 55(6), 2022.
[62] H. Zhang. Y. Li, B. Ding, and J. Gao. Practical data poisoning attack against next-item recommendation. In The Web Conference 2020, page 2458-2464, 2020.
14

---

A Song recommendation inequality
Figure visualizes the track-level distribution of algorithmic exposure with the cumulative share of recommendations (y-axis) plotted against the percentiles tracks (x-axis). The recommendations derived from the Deezer model [7] the Spotify MPD dataset [14]. More precisely, they based on the outputs generated for a random selection of 10,000 seed playlists for testing, produced by model that has been trained the remainder of the dataset, without any collective action Section 4 for more details. Similar to the artist-based Lorenz curve in Figure 2, we observe a very
high level of inequality with Gini coefficient of 0.8 (measuring the gap between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve).
Cumulative share recommendatoon
1.0
Lonenz Curee of Recommendatioss
Line of Equality
0.8
Couflicien:: 0.80
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00
0.25
0.75
1.00
Cumulative share of tracks
Figure 8: The Lorenz curve shows the unequal distribution recommendations across tracks: 80% of all recommendations are concentrated among just 15% of tracks.
B Experimental details
All experiments
jobs submitted centralized cluster, using the open-source HTCondor job scheduler [48]. All jobs utilized the same computing resources: For data preprocessing and performing the data modifications allocated 100GB of RAM. In a subsequent step, transformer models were trained using a single NVIDIA A A100-SXM4-80GB GPU. For each job, data preprocessing takes roughly 1-2 hours to complete (with coordinated strategies taking longer than uncoordinated ones). Models are trained for 18 epochs, using the optimal hyperparameters provided by Bendada et al. [7]. which takes roughly hours.
per a strategic collective action, CPU
used with an
A total of 1195 experiments with varying levels of song statistics knowledge and simple baselines, as well as 6 different hyperparameter configurations), across 12 collective sizes (a), and additional baseline without collective action (ar = 0) as reference for the main experiments. For the ablation study, strategies were tested over 13 values. Each experiment was conducted with five folds using different random seeds. This resulted in approximately 2390 CPU hours and 7170 GPU hours of total compute usage. The complete code is available at attps://githnn com/ oebaumann/ crccys-coolectivvecctt
run: We investigated 10 strategies (including 6 DirLoF strategies
C
Additional experiments
C.1 Ablation study for InClust strategy
We perform an additional empirical investigation provide insights into the inner workings of the strategy. In particular, the effect of strategic positioning using indirect anchors on the attention
function. Recall that the recommender trained such that SIM(s, p) (hag. 9 (p)) is large for
songs that frequently follow context in the training data, and small otherwise. The embedding function & (described in Section 2.1) is insensitive to the song ordering within playlists, and strategic positioning will only surface on the attention function g.
15

---

Similarity score
10-
(Hu.
(Aa) PG)
(No) pg))
(eu PS))
(47 PC)
(47)
(97, P9))
Collective Action:
Yes (Randon)
(InClust)
Top 50 recommendations
Figure 9: Similarities of context embeddings for indirect anchor songs (8g. 81, and 82) and the target song (s") for 1.1%. Dashed purple lines represent average thresholds to be among the top 50 most similar songs.
For illustration, frequently in the playlists of the collective, denoted 8p. 81, and 82. We compare InClust, where insert the target song s" before these songs, with Random, where add s* in the same playlists but at random positions. This ensures we have the same pretrained song embeddings across the two strategies. Playlists that do not contain any of those three songs are manipulated. We use Ps7 to denote the context targeted by using 8; as an indirect anchor.
three indirect anchors corresponding to the three songs that occur most
In Figure 9, we visualize the similarity scores of the songs (s", so. $1, and s2) with the three context clusters that have been targeted. More specifically, for every anchor song 8t, we use all seed contexts Ps. that have been targeted in the training data and compare the similarity score of these contexts with (yes) and without (no) collective action. This results in distribution by the violin plot. The left and the middle panel show that the similarity scores the anchor songs and their associated contexts Furthermore, as can be seen in the right panel, the InCLust strategy is very effective in getting the target song be among the top 50 most similar tracks for the targeted contexts (corresponding the probability mass above the purple threshold). contrast, for the random placement that does not specifically target these contexts, s* generally fails to achieve a ranking the top 50.
scores, visualized
not altered for either of the strategies (Random and InClust).
Targetting multiple context clusters. The InCLust strategy is effective on all three distinct context clusters that are targeted simultaneously with single target song s*. We confirm the effectiveness of this strategy by assessing its success with respect to a test set, which contains randomly drawn set of playlists (each split into seed context and ground truth) that have not been seen during training. Figure 10 shows that for any number of indirect anchors, InClust strategy significantly outperforms the Random placement strategy. Furthermore, it also clearly shows that it is possible to effectively target multiple context clusters using the same target song. conclusion, it possible to compete with several context clusters simultaneously.
Overall, this ablation indicates that inserting a single song in a subset playlists can be effective in associating s" with specific contexts while preserving recommendations for songs S*,s".
C.2 Information bottleneck
Figure 11 displays the 100 targeted direct anchors for 0.01% under different levels of knowledge about the song frequencies in the training set. Less information results in the selection of more frequent songs, as the gap between the estimated probability (relative occurrences songs in the known fraction of the dataset or estimated using external information) and the true probability (relative occurrences of songs in the entire training data) widens. This difference provides insight into the reduced amplification observed in Figure 5 for specific value of
16

---

0.5
Collective Strateyy
(TrClost)
2 JA (1hClust)
LA (InClost)
(Raadoa)
IA (Randon)
3 IN (Raadoo)
0.00
0.02
2004
11.06
11:08
0.10
Figure 10: Success with respect the number used indirect anchors (IA), in random coordinated fashion. Each dot or triangle corresponds to separate training run.
433m
A33
L23 Struee
100
399
Figure 11: Estimated and true probabilities of targeted direct anchors with limited information about training set frequencies (a 0.01%).
C.3 Songs targeted by different strategies
Figure 12 illustrates the anchor song selection for three distinct strategies. The InClust strategy identifies anchors based on their prevalence within the collective, targeting songs frequently listened to by its members. Highlighted
the left panel Figure 12, this method repeatedly employs indirect anchors, relying solely internal playlist statistics without needing broader song frequency insights. Conversely, the DirLoF strategy targets specific cluster of direct anchors (resulting in the red-colored cluster of anchors in the bottom left corner of the middle panel in Figure 12) targeting each only once. This method requires external data to ensure the disproportionately represented anchors in the collective match those less prevalent in the training data, shown the x-axis. The Hybrid strategy, illustrated in the right panel of Figure 12, combines these approaches, targeting
Strategy: InCluat
Strategy: DirLoF
Strategy: Hybrid
80
Occurrences Collective
3
126
3
40
0-
0.0000
0,0002
0.0005
0.0006 0.0088
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
0.0006 0.0088
0.0000
0.0002
0.000- 0.0006 0.0008
Probability
Probability
True Probability
Non- Targeted
Targoted
True Probability
Estimated Probability
Figure 12: Songs in playlists controlled by a collective composed of 0.07% of the training data. Blue dots are songs that are not targeted. Red integers indicate used anchor song and the number of times it is targeted.
17

---

Table Mean Amplification (Std Dev) for additional baseline strategies that do not require coordina- tion. Insert0i denotes the insertion of s* at index and Random@i- denotes the insertion of s* at random index between and j. The best and second-best performing strategies are highlighted in bold and underlined, respectively.
Strategy
0.0002
0.001
0.002
Insert@0
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0,00 (0.00)
Insert0l
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
(0.00)
Insert@3
0.00 (0.00)
(0.00)
(0,00)
Insert
0.00 (0.00)
(.000)
0.00 (0.00)
Insert@7
0.00 (0.00)
(0.04)
0.07 (0.08)
Random@l
0.00 (0.00)
0.00
0.03 (0.03)
Random
0.00 (0.00)
3.36 (4.45)
4.32 (2.90)
DirLoF
22.82 (6.21)
16.38 (7.37)
10.73 (2.66)
Table 2: Mean Amplification (Std Dev) under different hp configurations (a: 0.001). hp" denotes the optimal set of hp reported by Bendada et al. [7] with 8 attention heads (n_heads), a learning rate (Ir) of 1.0, dropout rate (drop-p) of 0.13, a weight decay (wd) of 1.53e-05, and 18 epochs. We experiment with five alternative hp configurations that are equivalent to hp" except for the following changes: hp1 sets n heaasss,, hp2 sets 1r=0.5, hp3 sets 1ro2ppp=..2. hp4 sets wd=5e-05, and hp5 makes all four of these changes. The highest amplification values among hp configurations are highlighted in bold.
Hyperparameter configuration
Strategy
hp*
hp1
hp2
hp3
hp4
hp5
Random
3.36 (4.45)
1.12 (2.15)
0.23 (0.52)
2.63 (5.67)
2.69 (2.96)
2.69 (3.41)
DirLoF
16.38 (7.37)
18.47 (9.03)
21.77 (1.67)
16.13 (10.07)
26.32 (4.38)
27.92 (5.53)
both frequently occurring songs within the collective and www-frequency anchors. The parameter governs the fraction of the collective targeting indirect anchors (as in the left panel) versus targeting direct anchors (as the middle panel). Larger values result in larger share of direct anchors being targeted, and smaller values result in keeping more of the frequently targeted indirect anchors, i.e., the large red integers visualized toward the top of the left panel. Note that all strategies target several anchors, ensuring all playlists can be used effectively.
C.4 Additional baselines
Table demonstrates that simple baselines. which insert s* fixed position, much less effective than a random insertion. Additionally, inserting s* at random within the first 10 positions of any playlist is much worse than random insertion any position.
C.5 Robustness of collective strategies
Table 2 shows that the DirLoF strategy is robust against hyperparameter (hp) changes. consistently outperforms the Random strategy across all configurations. Finally, Table 3 illustrates the effectiveness of DirLoF and Random across different numbers of training epochs for the recommender. Notice that the effectiveness of the DirLoF strategy decreases if model training is stopped early.
C.6 Internalities and externalities of algorithmic collective action
Here we provide more details on the results presented Section 4.3.
Metrics for model accuracy. To assess the quality of recommendations we follow Chen et al. [14) and Bendada al. [7] in using the following three popular performance metrics: R-precision measures the fraction of recommended items present in the masked ground truth, augmented by
18

---

Table 3: Mean Amplification (Std Dev) for relative to trained epochs (a 0.001). The best- performing strategies are highlighted in bold.
Strategy
# of epochs
DirLoF
Random
1
0.02 (0.04)
4.10 (9.17)
2
7.97 (5.86)
0.08 (0.17)
4
9.88 (16.10)
2.17 (1.81)
8
19.45 (12.82)
2.51 (4.82)
12
25.79 (10.30)
4.23 (3.13)
16
14.95 (6.00)
3,07 (4.85)
18
16.38 (7.37)
3.36 (4.45)
Table 4: Mean (+ 95% CT) recommendations without collective action (Ro). total gained recommen-
dations (A R), and gained recommendations in % of Rg (considering songs that are recommended at least once without collective action) for direct anchors, indirect anchors and others over five folds.
Metric
Direct anchors
Indirect anchors
Other songs
Ro AR
0.09 + 0.02
360.94 + 11.29
0.29 + 0.00
-0.00 + 0.01
2.68 3.74
-0.00 # 0.00
AR in % of Ro Song counts (per fold)
-0.00 + 0.00
0.02 + 0.01
-0.00 = 0.00
2784
157
2246756
artist matches. The Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) measures the ranking quality by rewarding relevant tracks placed higher in the recommendation list. The number of clicks (#C) quantifies how many batches ten song recommendations (starting with top candidates) are needed to find one relevant track. The Deezer model trained on the unmanipulated data achieves comparable results to the winning solutions of the RecSys 2018 APC challenge along these metries [60].
Impact on other artists. Unlike the partially aligned interests of the firm and the collective, the dynamics among artists differ, since boosting recommendations for one artist inevitably reduces the visibility of others. We are interested in understanding who is affected by our strategy. For the purpose of this analysis, we hold the total number of recommendations at inference time constant, making it zero-sum game.
To complement Figure 7, in Table 4, we show the effect of collective action (hybrid strategy with 1%) other songs. In line with the result presented in Section 4.3 (showing bins of songs with similar frequencies for just one fold), we do not find any evidence that any other songs experience a systematic change in exposure due to collective action, not even the targeted (in)direct anchor songs.
User experience of collective participants Collective participants are platform users who continue consuming content on the platform during and after performing strategic actions. To understand the price of collective action, we investigate the downstream effect on their own user experience. After all, users are likely to engage in collective action only it does not result significant detriment to their own content consumption experience. While perfect measure of user satisfaction is outside the scope of this work, we utilize participant's 's known preferences as basis for the experienced quality of recommendations. More precisely, for any collective participant that manipulated their playlist with hp)) = (p,-, s" : we use the targeted context (p.-) ) as a seed for the recommender and evaluate the output recommendations using the user-generated continuation of the playlist (p,t)
as the ground truth.
We revisit the collective strategy outlined in the ablation study (Section C.1) to scrutinize the inter- nalities of collective action. We find that the recommendations for collective participants are stable and robust under authentic strategic playlist manipulations. Figure 13 illustrates the precision score- measuring the similarity of recommendations for different strategies-aaneen across attacked contexts. It is around 80% on average, with little variation across strategies. This likely attributed inherent instabilities in the top K recommendations rather than the specifics of the strategics [36].
19

---

0.06
Compared strategies:
INCLuGE
Density
0.03
Inclust Randon
0.02
0.01
0.00
Precision score
%) for top recommendations
Figure 13: Variation in top 50 song predictions for attacked contexts: Predictions are stable under different collective action strategies.
Table 5: Average model performance: Predictions are robust under different collective action strategies.
Strategies
NDCG
R-precision
#C
None
0.35 0.0
0.28 0.0
1,43 0.1
Random
0.34 + 0.0
0.28 # 0.0
1.50 + 0.1
Inclust
0.35 0.0
0.28 0.0
1.1
Furthermore, by participating in collective action, users do not affect the variety of songs they get recommended. This stability of model predictions despite the coordinated collective action shown in Table 5: Inserting 8* between p;- and p,t does not significantly distort the recommenders ability to predict p.- from p... Interestingly, random placement of songs reduces the performance slightly more (especially for #C), as in this case, s* can be inserted within the context p;- by pure chance.
20

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The claims made the abstract and the introduction are shown in detail in Section 4. The scope outlined in the abstract and in the introduction corresponds the framework described in Section 3. Furthermore, Section 1.1 accurately reflects the paper's contributions.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as is clear that these goals attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question:
Does the paper discuss the limitations the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
The limitations of our work are discussed in Section 6.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution low or images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't 't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
21

---

Answer:
[NA]
Justification:
The paper does not include theoretical results.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
The experimental methodology is clearly described in Section 4 and all steps the experiments are clearly outlined, ensuring the reproducibility of the presented results. Furthermore, the experimental setup is described in detail in Section B.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way accomplish this, but reproducibility instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, other means that appropriate to the research performed.
also be provided via detailed
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.
(b) the contribution is primarily new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reprodueibility may be tricky in some cases, in which authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers have some path reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
22

---

Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide open access to the code here: https://githhb: com/ The data used for the experiments is pub- licly available and referenced in the paper. Furthermore, the hardware setup and the detailed experimental setup are described in Section B.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.c cc/ public/guisn /ttpg/ggiideee/eeeubiiieeee
for more details.
While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, so "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https: / btciss.ccppublee httpppppppidpsse//ppppppppaaaael Stw.iidee//oddeummiiic wwmmiisssiooooooo ssioclllycy for more details.
The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) recommended, but including URLs to data and code permitted.
6. Experimental Setting/Details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: All the training and test details (c.g.. data splits, hyperparameters, etc.) are described in Sections 4 and B well in the open access code repository.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can provided either with the code, appendix, or as supplemental material.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: All experiments were run several times with different seeds and we report error bars (where appropriate) along with description throughout the paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by enror bars, confi- dence intervals, or statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
23

---

The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation the standard error of the mean.
is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.
8. Experiments Compute Resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide detailed information on the used computer resources in Section B.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make into the paper).
9. Code Of Ethics
Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the hccppublic/thhccauuiiiieo
NeurlPS Code of Ethics https:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
The research conducted in the paper conforms with the NeurIPS Code of
Ethics.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurlPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g.. there a special consid- eration due to laws regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The underlying goal of this research is positive societal impact clearly described in the introduction as well as in Sections 2.2 and 3. Broader impacts (such as unintended uses) additionally discussed in Section 6.
Guidelines:

---

The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA No, they should explain why their work has societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deploymentt of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (c.g., gated release models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility ML).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The paper poses no such risks.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: All assets used for this research properly credited and the licenses respected.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include URL.
The name of the license (c.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
25

---

For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website). the copyright and terms of service of that souree should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswi thcode. com comddataees has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's s creators.
13. New Assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not release new assets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/mmodel as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not involve crowdsourcing or research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.
According to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not involve crowdsoureing or research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsoureing nor research with human subjects.
26

---

Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.
27


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "fOYe6BczlY", "reviewer": "Reviewer_9a2T", "summary": "This research work proposes a novel solution to promote songs on music streaming platforms strategically. \n\nUnder the following assumptions:\n\n1. Fans can collaborate to promote a specific song by collectively reordering playlists.\n2. The visibility of a song in a playlist affects its recommendation frequency.\n3. Users are influenced by the position of songs in playlists when making listening choices.\n4. The impact of collective action on song visibility is measurable and significant.\n\nThe authors suggest that fans strategically reorder playlists to promote a targeted song, thereby increasing its visibility in the recommender system. By leveraging algorithmic collective action, even small groups of fans can substantially impact the recommendation frequency of the promoted song. This strategy aims to enhance the visibility (capability of being discovered) of songs and artists, which will benefit both fans and musicians in the music streaming industry. \n\n The evaluation focuses on quantifying the amplification of recommendations achieved by strategically placing songs in playlists, using metrics such as recommendation probability and change in the number of recommendations for a song. The evaluation also includes the impact on the recommendations of other songs and the overall performance of the recommender system. The analysis of results reveals that the collective action strategies can lead to a substantial increase in the recommendation frequency of the targeted song, with up to 25x  higher recommendation probability compared to average songs.\n\nThe main contributions are:\n\n1. The paper introduces **two innovative collective** action strategies where participants strategically insert a target song into their playlists to promote an emerging artist. These strategies aim to increase the recommendations of the targeted song at test time, thereby boosting the artist's visibility on the platform.\n\n2. The research demonstrates that even **small collectives**, controlling less than 0.01% of the training data, **can achieve significant amplification of recommendations** by strategically placing songs in playlists. This finding highlights the effectiveness of algorithmic collective action in promoting songs without major disruptions to the user experience.\n\n3. Preservation of Other Recommendations, as the study reveals that while promoting a specific song through collective action, the recommendations of other songs are largely preserved. This indicates that the proposed strategies can enhance the visibility of targeted songs without significantly compromising the overall recommendation system's performance.", "questions": "Even if the problem is not exactly the same, could you relate your work with the one described in this cite: Walid Bendada, Guillaume Salha-Galvan, Thomas Bouabça, and Tristan Cazenave. 2023. A Scalable Framework for Automatic Playlist Continuation on Music Streaming Services. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591628 ?", "limitations": "The paper does not explicitly discuss possible limitations of the approach to addressing problems of privacy and fairness. However, considering the ethical implications of data manipulation and collective action in recommender systems is crucial for ensuring transparency and equity in algorithmic interventions.", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "- Its innovation is a significant strength as it provides a new approach to increasing the visibility of emerging artists in music streaming platforms.\n- Empirical Validation and Real-World Application: the research is empirically validated using an open-source APC model deployed on Deezer, a platform with millions of users. \n- important result: the study demonstrates that even small collectives can achieve substantial amplification of recommendations by strategically placing songs in playlists\n- The findings show the potential for diverse artist promotion, which can make fairer use of the platforms but also fights against the long-tail problem in recommender systems. It can also help the serendipity effect.", "weaknesses": "-  The paper assumes that users are influenced by the position of songs in playlists when making listening choices. This assumption **may oversimplify user behavior and overlook other factors** that influence song recommendations and user engagement, potentially leading to biased results.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your feedback and the positive assessment of our work.  \n\nTo respond to your question we relate our work to Bendada et al. (2023). The authors describe a transformer-based recommender system for automatic playlist continuation (APC) that Deezer has deployed in production. The model implements the represent-than-aggregate paradigm to achieve better scalability and the authors demonstrate that the model achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Spotify Million Playlist Dataset. We use their model as a case study for our work. It is one of the few industry-scale APC models that are publicly available, allowing us to retrain it and inspect the effect of playlist modifications on recommendations. In contrast to Bendada et al. (2023), we are interested in the sensitivity of the model to strategic playlist modifications in the training data, and inspect the recommendation of specific artists. This is a dimension that has not been considered in prior work which focused on aggregate performance metrics of the model trained on a fixed dataset. We are the first to focus on algorithmic collective action in this context.\n\nRegarding limitations, we will add a dedicated section in the future version to discuss the limitations of collective action and the negative externalities on other artists in more detail. We refer to the response to Reviewer tKsL for an extended discussion. We agree that this is valuable to put our work in context.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "1bMh28ld9O", "reviewer": "Reviewer_1cCC", "summary": "The paper shows that strategic collective action by a small fraction of the population can lead to significant amplification of a particular song in a recommender system.  The authors propose two strategies for the collective (for a transformer-based song recommender) that achieve this amplification.", "questions": "- Can you clarify the intuition and communication required by the collective for the two playlist modification strategies in 3.2? \nInClust seems to place the target song before the most popular songs in the collective’s playlist whereas DirLoF places the target song after a low popularity song? \nBoth strategies provide amplification in the experiments. How much communication among the collective do both require, is one modification easier practically?\n- Section 1.1 mentions “Our strategies exploit the properties of the attention function in the transformer model, without requiring knowledge of the model parameters”, can you elaborate?", "limitations": "The authors discuss limitations in Appendix  A.", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "- The setup is original and focuses on strategic collective action by a fraction of users in a recommender system and how this can increase a target song’s reach.\n- The performance loss for the platform is negligible, the collective’s strategies are not adversarial (for e.g. fake profiles, artificial perturbations) and based on 1-edit distance to the original playlist. The paper shows that recommendations are largely preserved.", "weaknesses": "- The experiments follow the MF-Transformer in [7], to make the paper self-contained it would be beneficial to have a description of $\\phi(.)$ and of $g(.)$ and the loss function in Section 2.1 or the Appendix. \n- I found the strategies in Sec 3.2 hard to parse, perhaps a figure showing the original playlist and the possible changes a user in the collective can do under the two strategies would be helpful. \n- Minor:  I think the notation h(.) is overloaded for the song/playlist embedding in 2.1 and for the strategy mapping which inserts s* into a playlist. \tAlso, fig 6 could use different colors for the different strategies.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for the feedback, we will incorporate your suggestions and adjust the notation. In response to your comment, we also decided to add pseudo code to make the strategies more clear. It can be found in the supplementary PDF.\n\nIn the following let us elaborate on your questions:\n\n**Our strategies exploit the properties of the attention function in the transformer model, without requiring knowledge of the model parameters.** \nThe assumption we operate under when designing the strategies is that the system aims to approximate the conditional probability of the next song, given prior songs within a given context window. We place the target song after a specific context with the goal that the model picks up on these correlations from the training data. This is a probabilistic assumption on the sequence model and it is not specific to the details of the model architecture or the training algorithm used. Thus, it is not surprising that the performance does not change much as hyperparameters of the model are varied (see the new Table 3 in the supplementary PDF). It is worth noting that similar approaches have proven to be very fruitful when designing collective action strategies in classification, where strategies have been designed under a Bayes-optimality assumption (see Ref. [24] in the manuscript). \n\n**Intuition for the strategies.** Within the context of the last paragraph, our strategies implement two heuristics to select the context $c$ after which to place $s^*$. For comparison, it is useful to have the random baseline in mind: for $\\alpha<0.1$, placing the song $s^*$ after a randomly selected context is not sufficient for it to be among the top K for any of the contexts  (it leads to no recommendation at test time, see Fig. 4).\n- The DirLoF strategy aims to exploit contexts that are overrepresented in the data the collective controls to increase the chance of meeting the top K threshold. To this end, it selects contexts $c$ that end on a low-frequency song (for small collectives, these typically appear only once in the controlled playlists). If these contexts have an overall probability smaller than $\\alpha$, it means that they are overrepresented. As a result, targeting these contexts is more likely to effectively result in a recommendation at test time compared to random selection, which is what we see in the experiments.\n- The InClust strategy aims to target contexts that appear multiple times among the playlists of the collective in a coordinated fashion. The intuition is that for contexts $c$ that precede a song $s_0$ that is popular within the collective, the context embedding $g(c)$ forms a cluster around the song embedding $\\phi(s_0)$, due to the way embeddings are trained. As a result, the collective can achieve large mass for this specific region of the context space by placing $s^*$ before $s_0$. They would hope this is sufficient to meet the top K threshold for similar contexts at test time. Here we find that $\\alpha>1%$ is necessary for this to be effective. The ablation in Figure 5 illustrates how this strategy increases the similarity between $s^*$ and the targeted contexts, leaving other similarity values widely untouched.\n\n**Communication.** Both strategies require communication among the members of the collective to coordinate on a target song $s^*$ and coordinate the execution time. In addition, each of the strategies requires one more statistic to be gathered: The InClust strategy requires participants to pool information about their playlists to identify the songs that occur most frequently in the playlists they control – no additional data needs to be collected. The DirLoF strategy requires global song statistics to get a sense of which songs are overrepresented. These statistics are then shared with other members of the collective. We envision the aggregation and communication of song counts to happen through an app or an online forum. Notably, there is a growing literature on developing tools for coordinating platform participants (see e.g., [1,2]) which could be used here. \n\nWhile both strategies are easy to implement, DirLoF comes with some additional overhead for identifying low-frequency songs. These statistics need to be gathered from external sources but can be shared among the participants. For example, approximate statistics and information based on scraping public playlists and streaming statistics are sufficient for the strategy to be effective (Fig. 12). Beyond this, none of the strategies require access to model weights, model architecture, or the training algorithm used. And none of the strategies require any computations that go beyond simple song counts as they do not use surrogate models.\n\nReferences:\n\n[1] Do, K., De Los Santos, M., Muller, M., & Savage, S. (2024, May). Designing Gig Worker Sousveillance Tools. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-19).\n\n[2] Imteyaz, K., Flores-Saviaga, C., & Savage, S. (2024). GigSense: An LLM-Infused Tool forWorkers' Collective Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02528.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "p8tUyZzJDW", "reviewer": "Reviewer_fQFx", "summary": "They proposed a strategy for the streaming platform users to collectively act in order to promote targeted songs. The promotion efficacy is measured by the targeted songs' recommendation frequency boost at testing time. This strategy is approved to be effective through simulation experiment.  Another finding is that this strategy has minimum impact to the performance of the recommendation system as a whole, i.e., by preserving user experience to other non-targeted songs.", "questions": "The context selection methods discussed in section 3.2 seems pretty arbitrary to me. What reason or motivation does it make you choose the `InClust` or `DirLoF` approach? How would you approve these are guaranteed to work?\n\nWhat if I say a good approach could be to find the most similar song (embedding similar higher than x)  that is at least y popular and place our targeted song z ( z could be -1, 1, 2, 3) positions after it?", "limitations": "The strategy could be effective but it is built on top of the assumption that the serving platform has deployed minimum control against collective behavior. As I am aware, there are various user-side anomaly detection mechanisms usually deployed in production in streaming services like what is described in the paper. As an example, there could be real time monitoring of such collective behaviors. Such an anomaly detection system could be constructed by building a user-entity graph. In this use case, we could use artist or songs as the entity. When in a short period of time, there are bursty events that are related to an entity that happens (user promoting a song in their playlist), it could be an important indicator that something unusual happens (because this is not a popular song, it does not receive so many promotes on average). A follow-up action in the system could tag those relevant data as \"spurious\" thus they never go to the training data of the transformer model (for continuous training). As a result, the collective action could have a significantly less effect when such monitoring is turned on; or depending on what threshold they are set up.", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "* This is a novel idea, presented in an interesting domain with a good amount of related work.\n* The writing of the paper is clear. The motivation is sound. \n* The experiment performed by the author successfully verified the efficacy of the collective strategy.", "weaknesses": "* Limited scope. See limitations below.\n* Lack of technical novelty and contribution. The evaluation result would be a good report but I would recommend the author to seek publication in a different conference.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your feedback. Let us elaborate on your comments below.\n\n**Intuition for the proposed strategies.** The design of our strategies relies on the idealized assumption that transformer-based models perform next song prediction by learning to model the conditional probability of songs, given context, in the training data. Achieving that the song is among the K most likely next songs implies a recommendation for similar contexts at test time. With this in mind, it makes sense to select a context $c$ and put the song $s^*$ right after this context to influence conditional probability $p(s^*|c)$. DirLoF and InClust are two different ways to select contexts $c$ to target. DirLoF exploits the overrepresentation of certain contexts in the playlists of the collective to pick those where they can make a larger difference. InClust targets a set of similar contexts that appear multiple times in the collective and targets them in a coordinated fashion. These are two principled levers from a statistical perspective. How we implement them is designed to make them practical.\n- **DirLoF.** DirLoF targets contexts that end on a song that occurs infrequently in the overall training data (typically once among the playlists of the collective). If these contexts have an overall probability smaller than $\\alpha$, they are overrepresented. Given the long-tail nature of the song distribution such songs are not that infrequent. Compared to inserting the song at random positions, the top K threshold can be met more often in that way (see Fig. 4).\n- **InClust.** InClust targets contexts that precede a song $s_0$ that frequently occurs in the playlists controlled by the collective. Thereby they implicitly target contexts that are similar from the perspective of the recommender, and close to $\\phi(s_0)$ in embedding space, by how the model is trained. \n\n**Alternative strategy.** There might be other ways to design strategies, but we offer a strong initial baseline for a widely underexplored question. In contrast to the strategy you proposed, it is crucial that our approaches do not rely on knowledge of the embedding function. The collective does not require access to the model parameters to implement our strategies, nor to train a surrogate model to approximate them. It just needs to gather song statistics to identify the contexts worth targeting. \n\nThe fact that the strategies are designed based on a statistical intuition of sequential generation, implies that they are not specific to the model architecture. We demonstrate the robustness with additional experiments where we vary the hyperparameters of the model (see Table 3 in the supplementary PDF). With the additional ablation, we hope to have convinced the reviewer of the robust assumption underlying the design of our strategies. \nIt is also in line with our argument that the effectiveness of the strategy decreases if model training is stopped early (see Table 2 in the supplementary PDF). \n\n**Theoretical guarantees.** End-to-end theoretical guarantees, beyond intuition in an idealized setting, is a lot to ask for, given that related data poisoning strategies, including popular Shilling attacks, rarely come with any guarantees in the context of deep learning-based recommender systems. Instead, we opted for a rigorous empirical evaluation using the example of an industry-scale recommender system that has been deployed in production.\n\n**Anomaly detection.** We agree that countermeasures could reduce the effectiveness of our strategies. However, they usually come at a cost for the firm. What makes the problem interesting is that it is not a zero-sum game between the platform and the users, in contrast to adversarial attacks. It is possible that agents pursue legitimate interests. In fact, our work is the first to provide empirical evidence that collective action strategies are *not* necessarily zero-sum. With this in mind – inspecting which use cases the platform would want to protect against is an interesting and open question for future work. \n\n**Contribution.** We are the first to study the impact of authentic sequence modifications on sequential recommender systems. We show that such strategies are effective and might be a realistic aspect we have to take into account when building future systems. Thus, our work empirically carves out a novel space of questions around machine learning in a broader social-economic context. We provide solid empirical evidence that the typical adversarial threat model is not applicable to algorithmic collective action and call for a more nuanced study of incentives around ML models. This seems relevant for the NeurIPS community and an important contribution. Is there anything else we can do to convince you of this?", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "hoEx7Ym36l", "reviewer": "Reviewer_tKsL", "summary": "This paper explores the possibility of boosting the recommendation of a song in an automatic playlist continuation system by using a collective strategy of adding the song into the training playlists of the APC at a specific position. The paper shows that adopting a strategy that targets low frequency context makes it possible to very significantly boost the exposition of the song in the output of the APC.", "questions": "- Could the authors rephrase / clarify the definition of the DirLof strategy and rationale behind it? something which is very surprising is that “the collective selects the anchor songs s0 with the smallest overall song frequency”. But it’s likely that smallest song frequency is for song appearing only once among playlists and these song are then mostly noise in playlists and it’s hard to get why those anchors would help improving recommandation of the inserted song. Also, statistics on songs with low frequency are likely much more difficult to obtain (the statistics will be much less reliable than for popular songs).\n- It’s very unclear what the distributions over playlists are (P,  P0, P*). It seems it’s almost used as a synonym of dataset, and the expectations are actually just empirical expectations. I’d like the author to clarify this point and to explain why it’s necessary to introduce such notations.\n- In table 2, it’s unclear how statistics are estimated when there is no training data to compute them from (while there is still a significant amplification).", "limitations": "- As mentioned in the weaknesses, there are other simple baselines that would be worth testing. That would help support the claim that the specially designed DirLof strategy is actually efficient.\n- Also the authors should comment on the possible transferability of their results to other APC models, and to modifications of hyperparameters of the model.\n\nOn the ethical side, the method is a bit too much presented as a way for artists to attack a recommender system, somewhat rerank their songs and make money out of it, which has some important ethical implications in terms of fairness among artists: As the payment system of most streaming services is based on subscription (so a fixed amount of money), artificially boosting an artist comes at the detriment of other artists.\nI would then rather avoid this message of \"opportunity for artists\" in the paper (and even in the title) and turn it instead as a warning to music streaming platforms that recommender systems may lack robustness to attacks and that they should be aware of it and take action. I think presenting the paper in this second way would solve this ethical issue, but the current message is, to me, ethically borderline.\n\nMinor comments\n- The authors claim that “most large platforms have shifted from relying on collaborative-based models for APC to building deep learning based recommenders …” but 1) the references are only Spotify based 2) the references are research papers which doesn’t mean that the shift actually happened and that platforms no longer use collaborative-based models part in their complex architecture.\n\n- In equation (1):\n    - The authors likely want to specify that the recommended song shouldn’t be part of the playlist i.e S’ **∩** p = **∅** in the argmax\n    - The argmax actually corresponds to the top K elements in terms of similarity, which is quite straightforward. But the sum in the equation makes it not very clear at first read. It could be worth it to state it explicitly before the equation.\n- There are several notations that use the letter h (song embedding, playlist embedding, playlist mapping). I think using different letters may help make things clearer.\n- In Figure 3, it seems like s* is subtituted to s_i (there is no s_i in (b)) while just before equation 4, it’s said that only insertions are considered.\n- “*Existing data poisoning techniques, for example, operate in different settings, not complying with Constraint 1 and typically assuming white-box access to the model or involving test-time profile manipulations.*” ⇒ this needs references.\n- *“Thus, collective action can make a tremendous difference for these artists: suppose an artist’s song is streamed 10,000 times, yielding a revenue for the artist of $40 for royalties of $0.004 per stream [32]; an amplification of 25 would increase this revenue to $1, 000.”* I understand this is purely illustrative, but the figures won’t reflect much the truth. First 0.004$ per stream is an average that depends on the platform, but also on the kind of registration of the user and on the country of the user with quite important variations. Second, several platforms (Spotify, Deezer…) are shifting to a payment model were all streams don’t have the same value, especially recommended streams are “discounted”, and some “real” artist may get a boost. Once again, I get it’s for illustrative purpose, but it brings confusion on how music payment system works, and then should be avoided in my opinion.\n- *“Moreover, when considering s* as a relevant recommendation, collective action even enhances the system’s performance”* Isn’t this completely obvious? if presentation of s* is boosted (which happens, given the amplification), other recommendations are barely affected (as shown on figure 6, solid line), and you consider s* a valid recommendation, then for sure recommendation metrics will increase, won’t they?", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 1, "strengths": "- Very interesting idea which is novel in the domain of music recommendation\n- Quite surprising experimental result that is worth sharing (possibility of boosting exposition of a song with the DirLof strategy).", "weaknesses": "- Limited scope:\n    - The idea is tested in the limited context of automatic playlist continuation and is likely not adaptable to broader applications.\n    - Only one APC model was tested, so the results may be specific to this model. It would have been a good idea to test the impact of the collective action on other models (such as the baseline proposed in the reference paper for the APC model).  Also, it’s unclear whether the effect would be robust to hyperparameter changes in the APC model.\n    - the method is tested in a static context (not in the real world), so the actual impact of the method on usage (for instance, whether a user exposed through the APC to a song boosted by the collective strategy would listen to it or not) is not tested (this would require access to the production of a streaming music service, though)\n- Very limited insights on the design of the efficient strategy (DirLof) and why it works. The presentation of the strategy is actually quite unclear, while it’s central to the paper.\n- There may be other simpler baselines that would be worth testing. The paper shows that inserting the song at the end of the playlists is less performance than inserting the song randomly, which suggests that inserting it earlier in the playlist sequence may help. So a baseline that would always insert the song at the beginning of the sequence could have decent results (the first place is likely to be avoided as it would mean that the song would never appear as the target in the training of the APC, but low positions that appear regularly as targets in the training could be considered).", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for the careful reading and the detailed feedback. We have performed the additional investigations in response to your suggestions. Let us elaborate on the individual comments below.\n\n**Other baselines.** We have implemented baselines where the song is placed in earlier positions in the playlist. The resulting amplification is shown in Table 1 in the supplementary PDF. None of the simple baselines is better than random.\n\n**Robustness to hyperparameters.** We have modified several hyperparameters of the Deezer model (number of attention heads, learning rate, dropout rate, weight decay). The results, presented in Table 3 of the supplementary PDF, show that the DirLoF strategy consistently outperforms the random strategy across all configurations.\n\nThese results are not surprising, as the strategy builds on a generalizable statistical intuition rather than specifics of the model architecture. This makes the strategies robust to model configurations, provided the model approximates the conditional probabilities in the training data sufficiently well.\n\n**Rationale behind DirLoF.** A sequential recommender is trained to predict the K most likely songs to follow a given seed context. The lever that DirLoF exploits is that certain contexts are overrepresented in the playlists the collective controls. Taking the random baseline as a reference, Fig. 4 shows that for $\\alpha<0.001$, randomly inserting $s^*$ is unlikely to lead to recommendations at test time. But by concentrating effort on overrepresented contexts the collective can meet the threshold more often. To identify overrepresented contexts, DirLoF uses that certain songs with global frequency $< \\alpha$ still appear in the collective. DirLoF targets contexts that end on such overrepresented songs.\n\nAs you mentioned, DirLoF relies on global frequency estimates of songs in the overall training data, and estimating small frequencies from few data points is hard in general. To justify this, we have implemented the strategy with only approximate statistics. And we find that the strategy is still effective; knowing only 10% of the data is sufficient to achieve decent gains (see Fig. 12 in the Appendix). Even scraping public song statistics that do not match the year of the data (we can only scrape current statistics, e.g., total number of streams) provides some useful signal. This convinced us that it is a worthwhile and feasible approach to pursue for small collectives.\n\n**Notation.** The notation ($P$,$P^*$,$P_0$) serves to frame our work within the original framework of algorithmic collective action by Hardt et al. 2023. There is a dataset $D$ of $N$ playlists sampled from a universe of playlists $P_0$, and a fraction $\\alpha$ for these playlists is modified according to the strategy $h$. As a result, the platform does not observe samples from the base distribution, but from a mixture $P$. Training is done using empirical expectations. At test time, the model is evaluated against unseen samples from $P_0$. We will make this more clear in the write-up.\n\n**Table 2.** We show average recommendations of (anchor) songs at test time and the difference in recommendations ($\\Delta R$) with vs. without collective action. These statistics are computed based on results from 5 different train-test fold splits. For each fold, we report the mean and the 95% confidence intervals.\n\nQuestions related to framing and fairness:\n\nThe focus of algorithmic collective action is to demonstrate that participants can exert control over the algorithm a platform deploys through strategic data reporting. This is a powerful message because it gives users a lever in an otherwise highly imbalanced power relationship. As the title suggests, we show how ‘participants can promote songs through sequence reordering’.\n\nAs you point out, how this lever is used can lead to different solutions. The redistribution of recommendations is inherently zero-sum among artists due to the limited budget of recommendations. But it is worth noting that this applies to any updates to a recommendation algorithm, as well as features like ‘Showcase’ on Spotify where one can pay for recommendations.\n\nIn an ideal world, this can be used for bottom-up unfairness mitigation in recommender systems, however, a positive effect on overall welfare is by no means guaranteed. But it is not justified to assume that every update a platform implements is beneficial and ethical, or that every update participants promote is harmful. Thus, we think it is valuable to take an approach complementing much of the existing literature and present collective action as a potential opportunity, rather than only a threat, as users often pursue legit interests. Understanding how interactions can be designed to promote positive change while suppressing exploitation is a very intriguing question. What our work contributes is empirical evidence that the fully adversarial model is not sufficiently nuanced to address this question.\n\n**Collective action increases system performance.** This is only obvious once you take the perspective of participants being economic agents pursuing their own legitimate interests. If incentives were completely misaligned such a gain would not be possible.\n\n**Example about revenue.** The purpose of this example is to illustrate how recommendations relate to monetary value. A study of collective action is incomplete without discussing these incentives, and it is hard to deny that more recommendations imply more revenue. But we will make this point without explicit examples to avoid misunderstanding.\n\nWe hope to have convinced the reviewer of the robustness of our proposed strategies and the valuable perspective for the NeurIPS community. In any case, we will dedicate a separate section in the final version to expand on the results in Appendix D.4 and discuss effects on other artists in more detail, making negative externalities and the need for more work very clear. Thank you for the feedback!", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:
We would like to thank all reviewers for their insightful feedback. Based on the reviewers' comments, we ran additional experiments and made some updates to the write-up, which we describe in detail in the individual rebuttals.

To support our discussion, we provide additional experiments and illustrations in the supplementary PDF. Figure 1, along with Algorithms 1 and 2, offers a visual explanation of the proposed strategies. Additional empirical results, including ablations related to model hyperparameters and the evaluation of alternative baseline strategies, can be found in Tables 1-3.

Meta-review: The paper considers a novel approach for a collective to promote songs on music streaming platforms based on automatic playlist continuation.

Several issues were raised by the reviewers, including limitations of the proposed techniques in real systems due to anomaly detection, and the potential of being misused by malevolent actors. While these issues are valid, the novelty factor of the paper and the potential of generating fruitful discussion and further research on the topic support the acceptance of the paper.

We strongly advise the authors revise the paper according to the author-reviewer discussions, with focus on the limitations and the ethical concerns raised.
Decision: Accept (poster)