A fairness-aware extension of Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17756v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 10:21:28 GMT
• Title: A fairness-aware extension of Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for ranking
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes SMAA-Fair, a fairness-aware extension of SMAA for ranking problems.<n>The framework is independent of the aggregation model and can incorporate different fairness metrics.<n> Numerical experiments with synthetic and real data show that SMAA-Fair improves the representation of protected groups among favourable ranking positions.
• Score: 5.32836690371986
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fairness has become a central concern in ranking problems involving individuals or social groups, particularly under the Responsible Artificial Intelligence agenda. In Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) provides a robust framework for handling uncertainty and incomplete preference information, but it does not explicitly address fairness in the resulting rankings. This paper proposes SMAA-Fair, a fairness-aware extension of SMAA for ranking problems. The approach reweights the simulated rankings generated by SMAA according to their level of group fairness, so that fairer rankings contribute more strongly to the acceptability indices and central weights vector. The framework is independent of the aggregation model and can incorporate different fairness metrics. In this study, Statistical Parity, normalized discounted Kullback--Leibler divergence (rKL) and normalized discounted cumulative Kullback--Leibler divergence (nDKL) are adopted. Rankings are derived from the fairness-adjusted acceptability matrix using expected ranking and maximum acceptability ranking. We also derive the central weight according to the degree of fairness in the obtained rankings. Numerical experiments with synthetic and real data show that SMAA-Fair improves the representation of protected groups among favourable ranking positions, while preserving robustness to preference uncertainty.

Related papers

• On the Stability of Prompt Ranking in Large Language Model Evaluation [9.718200364661675]
  This paper systematically studies prompt ranking stability under common sources of variability, including random seeds and limited evaluation subsets.<n>We find that while overall rank correlations are often moderate to high, the identity of the top-performing prompt frequently changes, leading to unreliable selection decisions.<n>We propose a simple stability-aware selection strategy based on a lower confidence bound, which accounts for both performance and variance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T10:13:47Z)
• Post-hoc Provider Fairness Adaptation via Hierarchical Exposure Alignment [54.58748721533078]
  Post-hoc Fairness Adaptation (PFA) is a lightweight framework that equips a frozen recommender with a fairness adapter.<n>It learns personalized additive score adjustments from user-item embeddings to steer provider exposure toward fairness.<n>PFA achieves substantial fairness gains with negligible accuracy loss, consistently outperforming strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T16:32:52Z)
• The Attention Market: Interpreting Online Fair Re-ranking as Manifold Optimization under Walrasian Equilibrium [63.76805218520176]
  We reformulate fair re-ranking within an attentional market framework governed by a Walrasian Equilibrium.<n>We propose ManifoldRank, an efficient online fair re-ranking algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T12:43:57Z)
• From Bias to Balance: Fairness-Aware Paper Recommendation for Equitable Peer Review [1.9029881798999504]
  We propose a framework for post-review paper selection that preserves, and in some settings can even enhance, measured scholarly quality.<n>By first analyzing the behavior of the fairness parameters under controlled conditions and then validating them on real submissions, Fair-PaperRec offers a practical, equity-focused framework for post-review paper selection that preserves, and in some settings can even enhance, measured scholarly quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T21:57:07Z)
• Prompt-Dependent Ranking of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Quantification [9.99813918008511]
  We study prompt-dependent ranking inference under pairwise human preferences.<n>We develop a framework for decision-safe rankings with statistically valid uncertainty guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T18:16:24Z)
• NDCG-Consistent Softmax Approximation with Accelerated Convergence [67.10365329542365]
  We propose novel loss formulations that align directly with ranking metrics.<n>We integrate the proposed RG losses with the highly efficient Alternating Least Squares (ALS) optimization method.<n> Empirical evaluations on real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves comparable or superior ranking performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T06:59:17Z)
• Quantifying Query Fairness Under Unawareness [82.33181164973365]
  We introduce a robust fairness estimator based on quantification that effectively handles multiple sensitive attributes beyond binary classifications.<n>Our method outperforms existing baselines across various sensitive attributes and is the first to establish a reliable protocol for measuring fairness under unawareness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T16:31:44Z)
• Stability and Multigroup Fairness in Ranking with Uncertain Predictions [61.76378420347408]
  Our work considers ranking functions: maps from individual predictions for a classification task to distributions over rankings. We focus on two aspects of ranking functions: stability to perturbations in predictions and fairness towards both individuals and subgroups. Our work demonstrates that uncertainty aware rankings naturally interpolate between group and individual level fairness guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T17:17:05Z)
• Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertainty [24.401219403555814]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T13:49:48Z)
• MANI-Rank: Multiple Attribute and Intersectional Group Fairness for Consensus Ranking [6.231376714841276]
  Group fairness in rankings and in particular rank aggregation remains in its infancy. Recent work introduced the concept of fair rank aggregation for combining rankings but restricted to the case when candidates have a single binary protected attribute. Yet it remains an open problem how to create a consensus ranking that represents the preferences of all rankers. We are the first to define and solve this open Multi-attribute Fair Consensus Ranking problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T16:36:20Z)
• 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.