Centralized Selection with Preferences in the Presence of Biases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04897v1
• Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 19:47:13 GMT
• Title: Centralized Selection with Preferences in the Presence of Biases
• Authors: L. Elisa Celis, Amit Kumar, Nisheeth K. Vishnoi, Andrew Xu,
• Abstract summary: The paper focuses on the setting in which candidates are divided into multiple groups and the observed utilities of candidates in some groups are biased--systematically lower than their true utilities. An algorithm is presented along with proof that it produces selections that achieve near-optimal group fairness with respect to preferences while also nearly maximizing the true utility under distributional assumptions.
• Score: 25.725937202777267
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper considers the scenario in which there are multiple institutions, each with a limited capacity for candidates, and candidates, each with preferences over the institutions. A central entity evaluates the utility of each candidate to the institutions, and the goal is to select candidates for each institution in a way that maximizes utility while also considering the candidates' preferences. The paper focuses on the setting in which candidates are divided into multiple groups and the observed utilities of candidates in some groups are biased--systematically lower than their true utilities. The first result is that, in these biased settings, prior algorithms can lead to selections with sub-optimal true utility and significant discrepancies in the fraction of candidates from each group that get their preferred choices. Subsequently, an algorithm is presented along with proof that it produces selections that achieve near-optimal group fairness with respect to preferences while also nearly maximizing the true utility under distributional assumptions. Further, extensive empirical validation of these results in real-world and synthetic settings, in which the distributional assumptions may not hold, are presented.

Related papers

• An incremental preference elicitation-based approach to learning potentially non-monotonic preferences in multi-criteria sorting [53.36437745983783]
  We first construct a max-margin optimization-based model to model potentially non-monotonic preferences. We devise information amount measurement methods and question selection strategies to pinpoint the most informative alternative in each iteration. Two incremental preference elicitation-based algorithms are developed to learn potentially non-monotonic preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T14:36:20Z)
• Fair Allocation in Dynamic Mechanism Design [57.66441610380448]
  We consider a problem where an auctioneer sells an indivisible good to groups of buyers in every round, for a total of $T$ rounds. The auctioneer aims to maximize their discounted overall revenue while adhering to a fairness constraint that guarantees a minimum average allocation for each group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T19:26:05Z)
• Efficient Weighting Schemes for Auditing Instant-Runoff Voting Elections [57.67176250198289]
  AWAIRE involves adaptively weighted averages of test statistics, essentially "learning" an effective set of hypotheses to test. We explore schemes and settings more extensively, to identify and recommend efficient choices for practice. A limitation of the current AWAIRE implementation is its restriction to a small number of candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T10:13:01Z)
• 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)
• Subset Selection Based On Multiple Rankings in the Presence of Bias: Effectiveness of Fairness Constraints for Multiwinner Voting Score Functions [42.23968578772441]
  We consider the problem of subset selection where one is given multiple rankings of items and the goal is to select the highest quality'' We show that for fairness constraints to be effective, different multiwinner score functions may require a drastically different number of rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T13:25:27Z)
• Fairness in the First Stage of Two-Stage Recommender Systems [28.537935838669423]
  We investigate how to ensure fairness to the items in large-scale recommender systems. Existing first-stage recommenders might select an irrecoverably unfair set of candidates. We propose two threshold-policy selection rules that find near-optimal sets of candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T21:21:38Z)
• Improving Screening Processes via Calibrated Subset Selection [35.952153033163576]
  We develop a distribution-free screening algorithm called Calibrated Subset Selection (CSS) CSS finds near-optimal shortlists of candidates that contain a desired number of qualified candidates in expectation. Experiments on US Census survey data validate our theoretical results and show that the shortlists provided by our algorithm are superior to those provided by several competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-02T17:15:44Z)
• Fair and Optimal Cohort Selection for Linear Utilities [0.0]
  We introduce the fair cohort selection problem, which captures a specific application where a single fair classifier is composed with itself to pick a group of candidates of size exactly $k$. We give approximately optimal-time algorithms for this problem in both an offline setting where the entire fair classifier is given at once, or an online setting where candidates arrive one at a time and are classified as they arrive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-15T17:26:46Z)
• Fair and Useful Cohort Selection [12.319543784920304]
  Dwork and Ilvento introduce an archetypal problem called fair-cohort-selection problem. A single fair classifier is composed with itself to select a group of candidates of a given size. We give optimal (or approximately optimal)-time algorithms for this problem in both an offline setting and an online setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-04T14:06:08Z)
• 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)

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.