Explainable Disparity Compensation for Efficient Fair Ranking
Ranking functions that are used in decision systems often produce disparate results for different populations because of bias in the underlying data. Addressing, and compensating for, these disparate outcomes is a critical problem for fair decision-making. Recent compensatory measures have mostly focused on opaque transformations of the ranking functions to satisfy fairness guarantees or on the use of quotas or set-asides to guarantee a minimum number of positive outcomes to members of underrepresented groups. In this paper we propose easily explainable data-driven compensatory measures for ranking functions. Our measures rely on the generation of bonus points given to members of underrepresented groups to address disparity in the ranking function. The bonus points can be set in advance, and can be combined, allowing for considering the intersections of representations and giving better transparency to stakeholders. We propose efficient sampling-based algorithms to calculate the number of bonus points to minimize disparity. We validate our algorithms using real-world school admissions and recidivism datasets, and compare our results with that of existing fair ranking algorithms.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Decision MakingFairnessSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Fairness-Aware Explainable Recommendation over Knowledge Graphs
There has been growing attention on fairness considerations recently, especially in the context of intelligent decision making systems. Explainable recommendation systems, in particular, may suffer from both explanation …
Collaborative FilteringDecision MakingExplainable RecommendationFairness+3Learning to Rank with Top-$K$ Fairness
Fairness in ranking models is crucial, as disparities in exposure can disproportionately affect protected groups. Most fairness-aware ranking systems focus on ensuring comparable average exposure for groups across the en…
Stochastic OptimizationFair and Calibrated Toxicity Detection with Robust Training and Abstention
Fairness in toxicity classification involves three integrated axes: ranking, calibration, and abstention. Training-time interventions and post-hoc safety mechanisms cannot be evaluated independently because the former de…
Bias Disparity in Collaborative Recommendation: Algorithmic Evaluation and Comparison
Research on fairness in machine learning has been recently extended to recommender systems. One of the factors that may impact fairness is bias disparity, the degree to which a group's preferences on various item categor…
BIG-bench Machine LearningFairnessRecommendation SystemsExplainable Fairness in Recommendation
Existing research on fairness-aware recommendation has mainly focused on the quantification of fairness and the development of fair recommendation models, neither of which studies a more substantial problem--identifying …
counterfactualFairnessRecommendation Systems