Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertainty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01610v4
• Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:21:49 GMT
• Title: Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertainty
• Authors: Richa Rastogi, Thorsten Joachims,
• Abstract summary: We argue that ranking can introduce unfairness if the uncertainty of the underlying relevance model differs between groups of options. We propose Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR) as a new fairness criterion for ranking. We show that EOR corresponds to a group-wise fair lottery among the relevant options even in the presence of disparate uncertainty.
• Score: 24.401219403555814
• License:
• Abstract: Ranking is a ubiquitous method for focusing the attention of human evaluators on a manageable subset of options. Its use as part of human decision-making processes ranges from surfacing potentially relevant products on an e-commerce site to prioritizing college applications for human review. While ranking can make human evaluation more effective by focusing attention on the most promising options, we argue that it can introduce unfairness if the uncertainty of the underlying relevance model differs between groups of options. Unfortunately, such disparity in uncertainty appears widespread, often to the detriment of minority groups for which relevance estimates can have higher uncertainty due to a lack of data or appropriate features. To address this fairness issue, we propose Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR) as a new fairness criterion for ranking and show that it corresponds to a group-wise fair lottery among the relevant options even in the presence of disparate uncertainty. EOR optimizes for an even cost burden on all groups, unlike the conventional Probability Ranking Principle, and is fundamentally different from existing notions of fairness in rankings, such as demographic parity and proportional Rooney rule constraints that are motivated by proportional representation relative to group size. To make EOR ranking practical, we present an efficient algorithm for computing it in time $O(n \log(n))$ and prove its close approximation guarantee to the globally optimal solution. In a comprehensive empirical evaluation on synthetic data, a US Census dataset, and a real-world audit of Amazon search queries, we find that the algorithm reliably guarantees EOR fairness while providing effective rankings.

Related papers

• A Distributionally Robust Optimisation Approach to Fair Credit Scoring [2.8851756275902467]
  Credit scoring has been catalogued by the European Commission and the Executive Office of the US President as a high-risk classification task. To address this concern, recent credit scoring research has considered a range of fairness-enhancing techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T11:43:59Z)
• Equal Opportunity of Coverage in Fair Regression [50.76908018786335]
  We study fair machine learning (ML) under predictive uncertainty to enable reliable and trustworthy decision-making. We propose Equal Opportunity of Coverage (EOC) that aims to achieve two properties: (1) coverage rates for different groups with similar outcomes are close, and (2) the coverage rate for the entire population remains at a predetermined level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T21:19:59Z)
• 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)
• Bipartite Ranking Fairness through a Model Agnostic Ordering Adjustment [54.179859639868646]
  We propose a model agnostic post-processing framework xOrder for achieving fairness in bipartite ranking. xOrder is compatible with various classification models and ranking fairness metrics, including supervised and unsupervised fairness metrics. We evaluate our proposed algorithm on four benchmark data sets and two real-world patient electronic health record repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-27T07:42:44Z)
• Explainable Disparity Compensation for Efficient Fair Ranking [0.3759936323189418]
  Ranking functions that are used in decision systems often produce disparate results for different populations because of bias in the underlying data. Recent compensatory measures have mostly focused on opaque transformations of the ranking functions to satisfy fairness guarantees. In this paper we propose easily explainable data-driven compensatory measures for ranking functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T09:12:50Z)
• RAGUEL: Recourse-Aware Group Unfairness Elimination [2.720659230102122]
  'Algorithmic recourse' offers feasible recovery actions to change unwanted outcomes. We introduce the notion of ranked group-level recourse fairness. We develop a'recourse-aware ranking' solution that satisfies ranked recourse fairness constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T11:53:38Z)
• Delving into Probabilistic Uncertainty for Unsupervised Domain Adaptive Person Re-Identification [54.174146346387204]
  We propose an approach named probabilistic uncertainty guided progressive label refinery (P$2$LR) for domain adaptive person re-identification. A quantitative criterion is established to measure the uncertainty of pseudo labels and facilitate the network training. Our method outperforms the baseline by 6.5% mAP on the Duke2Market task, while surpassing the state-of-the-art method by 2.5% mAP on the Market2MSMT task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-28T07:40:12Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Fast Fair Regression via Efficient Approximations of Mutual Information [0.0]
  This paper introduces fast approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency group fairness criteria for regression models. It uses such approximations as regularisers to enforce fairness within a regularised risk minimisation framework. Experiments in real-world datasets indicate that in spite of its superior computational efficiency our algorithm still displays state-of-the-art accuracy/fairness tradeoffs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-14T08:50:51Z)

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.