Engagement-optimized content recommendation systems exhibit a well-documented rich-get-richer dynamic that structurally disadvantages emerging creators on large-scale platforms. Evaluating debiasing interventions at scale demands faithful simulation of creator-viewer ecosystems, yet the fidelity, diversity, and validity of such simulators remain underexplored. We present a grounded user-simulation framework that models a heterogeneous population of ${\sim}42$K creators and their coupled viewer interactions over 12~weeks, and use it to evaluate equitable view-allocation policies formulated as a budgeted multi-armed bandit (MAB). The simulator captures three behavioral dimensions: (i)~\textbf{creator diversity}, modeled via a clustering approach grounded in real platform creator-level distributions; (ii)~\textbf{behavioral fidelity}, captured through coupled creator-content state machines that represent growth trajectories, engagement accumulation, and graduation dynamics; and (iii)~\textbf{population-level validity}, measured by calibration against observed platform metrics. We evaluate simulative-configurations that vary content-viewership target definitions, reward functions, and a small-creator reserve lever to maximize creator-content recommendation equity. A floor-protected per content-view-target with a view-parity-gap reward guarantees 90\% of view targets being met by creators every week, grows small-creator organic reach ${\sim}{+}33\%$ per week, and achieves high distribution stability (set of creators with funded-views Jaccard $= 0.819$). We analyze the Sim2Real gap and propose validation protocols, contributing evidence for when simulation-derived fairness conclusions can be trusted.

翻译：暂无翻译