Incentives for Item Duplication under Fair Ranking Policies
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15683v1
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:11:15 GMT
- Title: Incentives for Item Duplication under Fair Ranking Policies
- Authors: Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Alessandro Fabris, Gianmaria Silvello and
Gian Antonio Susto
- Abstract summary: We study the behaviour of different fair ranking policies in the presence of duplicates.
We find that fairness-aware ranking policies may conflict with diversity, due to their potential to incentivize duplication more than policies solely focused on relevance.
- Score: 69.14168955766847
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Ranking is a fundamental operation in information access systems, to filter
information and direct user attention towards items deemed most relevant to
them. Due to position bias, items of similar relevance may receive
significantly different exposure, raising fairness concerns for item providers
and motivating recent research into fair ranking. While the area has progressed
dramatically over recent years, no study to date has investigated the potential
problem posed by duplicated items. Duplicates and near-duplicates are common in
several domains, including marketplaces and document collections available to
search engines. In this work, we study the behaviour of different fair ranking
policies in the presence of duplicates, quantifying the extra-exposure gained
by redundant items. We find that fairness-aware ranking policies may conflict
with diversity, due to their potential to incentivize duplication more than
policies solely focused on relevance. This fact poses a problem for system
owners who, as a result of this incentive, may have to deal with increased
redundancy, which is at odds with user satisfaction. Finally, we argue that
this aspect represents a blind spot in the normative reasoning underlying
common fair ranking metrics, as rewarding providers who duplicate their items
with increased exposure seems unfair for the remaining providers.
Related papers
- Towards Fair RAG: On the Impact of Fair Ranking in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [53.285436927963865]
This paper presents the first systematic evaluation of RAG systems integrated with fair rankings.
We focus specifically on measuring the fair exposure of each relevant item across the rankings utilized by RAG systems.
Our findings indicate that RAG systems with fair rankings can maintain a high level of generation quality and, in many cases, even outperform traditional RAG systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-17T23:10:04Z) - The Role of Relevance in Fair Ranking [1.5469452301122177]
We argue that relevance scores should satisfy a set of desired criteria in order to guide fairness interventions.
We then empirically show that not all of these criteria are met in a case study of relevance inferred from biased user click data.
Our analyses and results surface the pressing need for new approaches to relevance collection and generation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-09T16:58:23Z) - Fair Ranking as Fair Division: Impact-Based Individual Fairness in
Ranking [36.42838320396534]
We argue that any particular choice of such a link function may be difficult to defend.
This not only avoids the need to choose a link function, but also more meaningfully quantifies the impact on the items beyond exposure.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-15T02:20:30Z) - Joint Multisided Exposure Fairness for Recommendation [76.75990595228666]
This paper formalizes a family of exposure fairness metrics that model the problem jointly from the perspective of both the consumers and producers.
Specifically, we consider group attributes for both types of stakeholders to identify and mitigate fairness concerns that go beyond individual users and items towards more systemic biases in recommendation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-29T19:13:23Z) - FaiRIR: Mitigating Exposure Bias from Related Item Recommendations in
Two-Sided Platforms [17.42360994589386]
We introduce flexible interventions (FaiRIR) in the Related Item Recommendations pipeline.
We show that our mechanisms allow for a fine-grained control on the exposure distribution, often at a small or no cost in terms of relatedness and user satisfaction.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-01T07:01:33Z) - Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: the Story so Far [68.45921483094705]
Data-driven algorithms are studied in diverse domains to support critical decisions, directly impacting people's well-being.
A growing community of researchers has been investigating the equity of existing algorithms and proposing novel ones, advancing the understanding of risks and opportunities of automated decision-making for historically disadvantaged populations.
Progress in fair Machine Learning hinges on data, which can be appropriately used only if adequately documented.
Unfortunately, the algorithmic fairness community suffers from a collective data documentation debt caused by a lack of information on specific resources (opacity) and scatteredness of available information (sparsity)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-03T17:25:46Z) - Exposing Query Identification for Search Transparency [69.06545074617685]
We explore the feasibility of approximate exposing query identification (EQI) as a retrieval task by reversing the role of queries and documents in two classes of search systems.
We derive an evaluation metric to measure the quality of a ranking of exposing queries, as well as conducting an empirical analysis focusing on various practical aspects of approximate EQI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-14T20:19:27Z) - A Graph-based Approach for Mitigating Multi-sided Exposure Bias in
Recommender Systems [7.3129791870997085]
We introduce FairMatch, a graph-based algorithm that improves exposure fairness for items and suppliers.
A comprehensive set of experiments on two datasets and comparison with state-of-the-art baselines show that FairMatch, while significantly improves exposure fairness and aggregate diversity, maintains an acceptable level of relevance of the recommendations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-07T18:01:26Z) - User Fairness, Item Fairness, and Diversity for Rankings in Two-Sided
Markets [28.537935838669423]
We show that user fairness, item fairness and diversity are fundamentally different concepts.
We present the first ranking algorithm that explicitly enforces all three desiderata.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-04T02:53:09Z) - SetRank: A Setwise Bayesian Approach for Collaborative Ranking from
Implicit Feedback [50.13745601531148]
We propose a novel setwise Bayesian approach for collaborative ranking, namely SetRank, to accommodate the characteristics of implicit feedback in recommender system.
Specifically, SetRank aims at maximizing the posterior probability of novel setwise preference comparisons.
We also present the theoretical analysis of SetRank to show that the bound of excess risk can be proportional to $sqrtM/N$.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-02-23T06:40:48Z)
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.