Intersectional Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.14775v2
• Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 16:21:37 GMT
• Title: Intersectional Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection
• Authors: Giorgio Barnabo', Carlos Castillo, Michael Mathioudakis, Sergio Celis
• Abstract summary: We study the problem of selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants, where each candidate is associated with a score indicating his/her aptitude. We consider a situation in which some groups of candidates experience historical and present disadvantage that makes their chances of being accepted much lower than other groups. We propose two algorithms to solve this problem, analyze them, and evaluate them experimentally using a dataset of university application scores and admissions to bachelor degrees in an OECD country.
• Score: 3.4961413413444817
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We study the problem of selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants, where each candidate is associated with a score indicating his/her aptitude. Depending on the specific scenario, such as job search or college admissions, these scores may be the results of standardized tests or other predictors of future performance and utility. We consider a situation in which some groups of candidates experience historical and present disadvantage that makes their chances of being accepted much lower than other groups. In these circumstances, we wish to apply an affirmative action policy to reduce acceptance rate disparities, while avoiding any large decrease in the aptitude of the candidates that are eventually selected. Our algorithmic design is motivated by the frequently observed phenomenon that discrimination disproportionately affects individuals who simultaneously belong to multiple disadvantaged groups, defined along intersecting dimensions such as gender, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and disability. In short, our algorithm's objective is to simultaneously: select candidates with high utility, and level up the representation of disadvantaged intersectional classes. This naturally involves trade-offs and is computationally challenging due to the the combinatorial explosion of potential subgroups as more attributes are considered. We propose two algorithms to solve this problem, analyze them, and evaluate them experimentally using a dataset of university application scores and admissions to bachelor degrees in an OECD country. Our conclusion is that it is possible to significantly reduce disparities in admission rates affecting intersectional classes with a small loss in terms of selected candidate aptitude. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study fairness constraints with regards to intersectional classes in the context of top-k selection.

Related papers

• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Algorithms for College Admissions Decision Support: Impacts of Policy Change and Inherent Variability [18.289154814012996]
  We show that removing race data from a developed applicant ranking algorithm reduces the diversity of the top-ranked pool without meaningfully increasing the academic merit of that pool. We measure the impact of policy change on individuals by comparing the arbitrariness in applicant rank attributable to policy change to the arbitrariness attributable to randomness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T14:59:30Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Bounding Counterfactuals under Selection Bias [60.55840896782637]
  We propose a first algorithm to address both identifiable and unidentifiable queries. We prove that, in spite of the missingness induced by the selection bias, the likelihood of the available data is unimodal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-26T10:33:10Z)
• Fairness in Selection Problems with Strategic Candidates [9.4148805532663]
  We study how the strategic aspect affects fairness in selection problems. A population of rational candidates compete by choosing an effort level to increase their quality. We characterize the (unique) equilibrium of this game in the different parameters' regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T17:03:32Z)
• An Outcome Test of Discrimination for Ranked Lists [0.18416014644193063]
  We show that non-discrimination implies a system of moment inequalities. We show how to statistically test the implied inequalities, and validate our approach in an application using data from LinkedIn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T16:42:57Z)
• Fair Sequential Selection Using Supervised Learning Models [11.577534539649374]
  We consider a selection problem where sequentially arrived applicants apply for a limited number of positions/jobs. We show that even with a pre-trained model that satisfies the common fairness notions, the selection outcomes may still be biased against certain demographic groups. We introduce a new fairness notion, Equal Selection (ES),'' suitable for sequential selection problems and propose a post-processing approach to satisfy the ES fairness notion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T19:45:26Z)
• Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
  Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Quota-based debiasing can decrease representation of already underrepresented groups [5.1135133995376085]
  We show that quota-based debiasing based on a single attribute can worsen the representation of already underrepresented groups and decrease overall fairness of selection. Our results demonstrate the importance of including all relevant attributes in debiasing procedures and that more efforts need to be put into eliminating the root causes of inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-13T14:26:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.