Explainable Disparity Compensation for Efficient Fair Ranking
0
👁️
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Ranking functions used in decision systems can produce different results for different populations due to bias in the underlying data
- Addressing and compensating for these disparate outcomes is crucial for fair decision-making
- Previous compensatory measures have focused on opaque transformations of ranking functions or the use of quotas/set-asides
- This paper proposes easily explainable, data-driven compensatory measures for ranking functions
Plain English Explanation
Decision-making systems often use ranking functions to evaluate candidates or applicants, such as for college admissions or lending decisions. However, these ranking functions can sometimes produce unfair results, favoring certain groups over others due to bias in the underlying data.
The authors of this paper recognized that addressing these disparities is a critical problem for achieving fairness in decision-making. Previous attempts to solve this issue have relied on complicated mathematical transformations of the ranking functions or setting aside a minimum number of spots for underrepresented groups.
Instead, the researchers propose a more transparent and easy-to-understand approach. Their method involves adding "bonus points" to the ranking scores of individuals from underrepresented groups. These bonus points can be set in advance and adjusted as needed, allowing for better consideration of intersections between different identities and making the process more transparent to stakeholders.
The paper also describes efficient algorithms to calculate the optimal number of bonus points required to minimize disparities in the ranking outcomes. The researchers validate their approach using real-world datasets related to school admissions and recidivism prediction, and compare their results to other fair ranking algorithms.
Technical Explanation
The core idea of this paper is to develop compensatory measures for ranking functions that can address disparities in outcomes for different populations. The authors note that previous attempts have often relied on opaque transformations of the ranking functions or the use of quotas and set-asides, which can lack transparency.
Their proposed approach is to add "bonus points" to the ranking scores of individuals from underrepresented groups. These bonus points can be set in advance and adjusted as needed, allowing for consideration of intersections between different identities (e.g., race and gender). The authors develop efficient sampling-based algorithms to calculate the optimal number of bonus points required to minimize disparities in the ranking outcomes.
The researchers validate their approach using real-world datasets related to school admissions and recidivism prediction, and compare their results to other fair ranking algorithms such as those described in Explainable Fair Framework for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Prediction, Understanding Fairness of Surrogate Functions for Algorithmic Fairness, and Fairness and Unfairness in Binary and Multiclass Classification: Quantifying and Calculating.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a promising approach to addressing disparities in ranking functions, with the key advantage of being more transparent and easily explainable compared to previous methods. The use of bonus points is a straightforward concept that can be understood by a wide range of stakeholders.
However, the paper does not fully address the potential limitations or unintended consequences of this approach. For example, the authors do not discuss how to determine the appropriate level of bonus points or how to ensure that the system does not create new forms of unfairness by overcompensating for certain groups.
Additionally, the paper focuses on ranking functions, but the issues of fairness and bias in decision-making systems extend beyond just the ranking component. As discussed in Impact of Fairness Regulations, Institutions, and Policies on Population Qualifications, the entire ecosystem of decision-making, from data collection to model deployment, needs to be examined and addressed to achieve true fairness.
Further research is needed to explore the long-term implications of this approach, as well as to examine how it can be integrated into a broader framework for fair and ethical algorithmic decision-making.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel and transparent approach to addressing disparities in ranking functions used in decision-making systems. By adding bonus points to the ranking scores of underrepresented groups, the authors aim to compensate for biases in the underlying data and ensure more equitable outcomes.
While the proposed method shows promise, the paper also highlights the need for continued research and a more holistic approach to fairness in algorithmic decision-making. As decision-making systems become increasingly prevalent in our society, it is crucial that we develop robust and ethical frameworks to ensure that they do not perpetuate or exacerbate existing inequalities.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
👁️
0
Explainable Disparity Compensation for Efficient Fair Ranking
Abraham Gale, Am'elie Marian
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.
Read more4/23/2024
🤷
0
Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertainty
Richa Rastogi, Thorsten Joachims
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.
Read more7/15/2024
0
On the Maximal Local Disparity of Fairness-Aware Classifiers
Jinqiu Jin, Haoxuan Li, Fuli Feng
Fairness has become a crucial aspect in the development of trustworthy machine learning algorithms. Current fairness metrics to measure the violation of demographic parity have the following drawbacks: (i) the average difference of model predictions on two groups cannot reflect their distribution disparity, and (ii) the overall calculation along all possible predictions conceals the extreme local disparity at or around certain predictions. In this work, we propose a novel fairness metric called Maximal Cumulative ratio Disparity along varying Predictions' neighborhood (MCDP), for measuring the maximal local disparity of the fairness-aware classifiers. To accurately and efficiently calculate the MCDP, we develop a provably exact and an approximate calculation algorithm that greatly reduces the computational complexity with low estimation error. We further propose a bi-level optimization algorithm using a differentiable approximation of the MCDP for improving the algorithmic fairness. Extensive experiments on both tabular and image datasets validate that our fair training algorithm can achieve superior fairness-accuracy trade-offs.
Read more6/6/2024
📊
0
Standardized Interpretable Fairness Measures for Continuous Risk Scores
Ann-Kristin Becker, Oana Dumitrasc, Klaus Broelemann
We propose a standardized version of fairness measures for continuous scores with a reasonable interpretation based on the Wasserstein distance. Our measures are easily computable and well suited for quantifying and interpreting the strength of group disparities as well as for comparing biases across different models, datasets, or time points. We derive a link between the different families of existing fairness measures for scores and show that the proposed standardized fairness measures outperform ROC-based fairness measures because they are more explicit and can quantify significant biases that ROC-based fairness measures miss.
Read more8/30/2024