skip to main content
10.1145/3209978.3210063acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Rankings of people and items are at the heart of selection-making, match-making, and recommender systems, ranging from employment sites to sharing economy platforms. As ranking positions influence the amount of attention the ranked subjects receive, biases in rankings can lead to unfair distribution of opportunities and resources such as jobs or income. This paper proposes new measures and mechanisms to quantify and mitigate unfairness from a bias inherent to all rankings, namely, the position bias which leads to disproportionately less attention being paid to low-ranked subjects. Our approach differs from recent fair ranking approaches in two important ways. First, existing works measure unfairness at the level of subject groups while our measures capture unfairness at the level of individual subjects, and as such subsume group unfairness. Second, as no single ranking can achieve individual attention fairness, we propose a novel mechanism that achieves amortized fairness, where attention accumulated across a series of rankings is proportional to accumulated relevance. We formulate the challenge of achieving amortized individual fairness subject to constraints on ranking quality as an online optimization problem and show that it can be solved as an integer linear program. Our experimental evaluation reveals that unfair attention distribution in rankings can be substantial, and demonstrates that our method can improve individual fairness while retaining high ranking quality.

References

  1. Rediet Abebe, Jon Kleinberg, and David C Parkes . 2017. Fair division via social comparison. In AAMAS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Philip Adler, Casey Falk, Sorelle Friedler, Gabriel Rybeck, Carlos Scheidegger, Brandon Smith, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian . 2016. Auditing Black-Box Models for Indirect Influence. In ICDM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mor Armony and Amy R. Ward . 2010. Fair Dynamic Routing in Large-Scale Heterogeneous-Server Systems. Operations Research (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Asia J Biega, Rishiraj Saha Roy, and Gerhard Weikum . 2017. Privacy through Solidarity: A User-Utility-Preserving Framework to Counter Profiling. In SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ryan Calo and Alex Rosenblat . 2017. The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Review (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. L Elisa Celis, Damian Straszak, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi . 2017. Ranking with Fairness Constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06840.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Abhijnan Chakraborty, Asia J. Biega, Aniko Hannak, and Krishna P. Gummadi . 2017. Fair Sharing for Sharing Economy Platforms. In FATREC@RecSys Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Aleksandr Chuklin, Ilya Markov, and Maarten de Rijke . 2015. Click Models for Web Search. In Morgan & Claypool.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. FAT Conference . {n. d.}. Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*) small http://fatconference.org/resources.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nick Craswell, Onno Zoeter, Michael Taylor, and Bill Ramsey . 2008. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models WSDM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Georges Dupret and Benjamin Piwowarski . 2008. A user browsing model to predict search engine click data from past observations SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel . 2012. Fairness through awareness. In ITCS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Benjamin Edelman, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz . 2007. Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. American economic review (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Michael Feldman, Sorelle Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian . 2015. Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact. In KDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ali Ghodsi, Vyas Sekar, Matei Zaharia, and Ion Stoica . 2012. Multi-resource fair queueing for packet processing SIGCOMM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica . 2011. Dominant resource fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types NSDI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jerald Greenberg . 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management review (1987).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller . 2018. Beyond Distributive Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Feature Selection for Procedurally Fair Learning. In AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fan Guo, Chao Liu, and Yi Min Wang . 2009. Efficient multiple-click models in web search. In WSDM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro . 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In NIPS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Thorsten Joachims and Filip Radlinski . 2007. Search Engines that Learn from Implicit Feedback. IEEE Computer (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Thorsten Joachims, Adith Swaminathan, and Tobias Schnabel . 2017. Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback. In WSDM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Toshihiro Kamishima, Shotaro Akaho, Hideki Asoh, and Jun Sakuma . 2012. Fairness-Aware Classifier with Prejudice Remover Regularizer ECML/PKDD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael Kearns, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu . 2017. Meritocratic Fairness for Cross-Population Selection ICML.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan . 2017. Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Karen Levy and Solon Barocas . 2018. Designing Against Discrimination in Online Markets. Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Rishabh Mehrotra, Ashton Anderson, Fernando Diaz, Amit Sharma, Hanna Wallach, and Emine Yilmaz . 2017. Auditing Search Engines for Differential Satisfaction Across Demographics WWW. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Dino Pedreschi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini . 2008. Discrimination-aware data mining. In KDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Andrea Romei and Salvatore Ruggieri . 2014. A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis. Knowledge Eng. Review (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims . 2018. Fairness of Exposure in Rankings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Elaine Walster, Ellen Berscheid, and G William Walster . 1973. New directions in equity research. Journal of personality and social psychology (1973).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Xuanhui Wang, Michael Bendersky, Donald Metzler, and Marc Najork . 2016. Learning to Rank with Selection Bias in Personal Search SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Menahem E Yaari and Maya Bar-Hillel . 1984. On dividing justly. Social choice and welfare (1984).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ke Yang and Julia Stoyanovich . 2007. Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. In SSDBM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Krishna P. Gummadi . 2017. Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment. In WWW. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates . 2017. FA*IR: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In CIKM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Richard S. Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toniann Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork . 2013. Learning Fair Representations. In ICML. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGIR '18: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval
            June 2018
            1509 pages
            ISBN:9781450356572
            DOI:10.1145/3209978

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 27 June 2018

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            SIGIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate86of409submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader