Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertainty

Overview

• Ranking is a common method for helping human decision-makers focus on the most relevant options
• However, the authors argue that ranking can introduce unfairness if the uncertainty in the underlying relevance model differs between groups
• To address this, the authors propose a new fairness criterion called Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR) that aims to ensure an even distribution of the "cost burden" across groups
• The authors present an efficient algorithm for computing EOR rankings and show it performs well on synthetic and real-world data

Plain English Explanation

Ranking is a way of organizing a set of options so that the most important or relevant ones are shown first. This is used in many everyday situations, like surfacing potentially relevant products on an e-commerce site or prioritizing college applications for human review. Ranking can make it easier for humans to evaluate options by focusing their attention on the most promising ones.

However, the authors argue that ranking can also introduce unfairness. This can happen when the underlying model used to estimate the relevance of each option has more uncertainty for certain groups of options. For example, minority groups may have higher uncertainty in their relevance estimates due to a lack of data or appropriate features. As a result, these groups may be less likely to have their most relevant options surfaced.

To address this, the authors propose a new fairness criterion called "Equal-Opportunity Ranking" (EOR). EOR aims to ensure that the "cost burden" of being ranked lower is evenly distributed across all groups, rather than falling disproportionately on certain groups. This is different from other notions of fairness, like demographic parity or the proportional Rooney rule, which focus on proportional representation.

The authors also present an efficient algorithm for computing EOR rankings and show that it performs well on both synthetic and real-world data.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a new fairness criterion for ranking, called Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR), which aims to ensure an even distribution of the "cost burden" across different groups of options, even in the presence of disparate uncertainty in the underlying relevance model.

The authors first argue that the conventional Probability Ranking Principle (PRP), which orders options based on their estimated relevance probabilities, can lead to unfairness when there are differences in the uncertainty of these relevance estimates across groups. This can happen, for example, when minority groups have fewer data points or less relevant features, leading to higher uncertainty in their relevance estimates.

To address this issue, the authors introduce EOR as a new fairness criterion. EOR optimizes for an even cost burden on all groups, unlike PRP. Importantly, the authors show that EOR corresponds to a group-wise fair lottery among the relevant options, even with disparate uncertainty.

To make EOR ranking practical, the authors present an efficient algorithm that can compute the EOR ranking in time O(n log(n)), where n is the number of options. They prove that this algorithm provides a close approximation guarantee to the globally optimal EOR solution.

The authors evaluate their approach comprehensively on synthetic data, a US Census dataset, and a real-world audit of Amazon search queries. They find that their algorithm reliably guarantees EOR fairness while providing effective rankings.

Critical Analysis

The authors make a compelling case for the importance of addressing fairness issues in ranking systems, particularly in the context of disparate uncertainty across groups. Their proposal of Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR) as a new fairness criterion is a novel and thoughtful approach.

One potential limitation of the research is the assumption that the underlying relevance model is known. In many real-world scenarios, the true relevance model may be unknown, and the authors' approach would rely on estimated relevance probabilities, which could introduce additional sources of uncertainty and fairness issues.

Additionally, the authors focus on group-level fairness, as measured by the even distribution of the "cost burden" across groups. While this is an important consideration, there may also be individual-level fairness concerns that are not fully addressed by the EOR criterion.

Further research could explore the interactions between fairness, accuracy, and other desirable ranking properties, as well as the robustness of the EOR approach to different types of uncertainty and real-world deployment scenarios. Incorporating user feedback and preferences into the fairness objective could also be a fruitful area of investigation.

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on fairness in ranking systems, and the authors' work provides a solid foundation for addressing these critical issues.

Conclusion

The paper presents a novel approach to address fairness concerns in ranking systems, where the uncertainty in the underlying relevance model can differ across groups of options. By proposing the Equal-Opportunity Ranking (EOR) criterion, the authors introduce a fairness measure that aims to ensure an even distribution of the "cost burden" across groups, unlike the traditional Probability Ranking Principle.

The authors' efficient algorithm for computing EOR rankings and its strong performance on both synthetic and real-world data demonstrate the practical applicability of their approach. This work has important implications for a wide range of applications that rely on ranking, from e-commerce product recommendations to college admissions processes, where fairness is a crucial concern.

By addressing the issue of disparate uncertainty in relevance estimates, this research contributes to the broader effort of developing more equitable and inclusive decision-making systems. As the use of ranking algorithms continues to grow, the insights and methodologies presented in this paper can help ensure that these systems do not inadvertently amplify existing societal biases and inequities.