Julia Stoyanovich
ABSTRACT
In the past few years, there has been much work on incorporating fairness requirements into the design of algorithmic rankers, with contributions from the data management, algorithms, information retrieval, and recommender systems communities. In this tutorial, we give a systematic overview of this work, offering a broad perspective that connects formalizations and algorithmic approaches across subfields.
During the first part of the tutorial, we present a classification framework for fairness-enhancing interventions, along which we will then relate the technical methods. This framework allows us to unify the presentation of mitigation objectives and of algorithmic techniques to help meet those objectives or identify trade-offs. Next, we discuss fairness in score-based ranking and in supervised learning-to-rank. We conclude with recommendations for practitioners, to help them select a fair ranking method based on the requirements of their specific application domain.
- Abolfazl Asudeh, HV Jagadish, Julia Stoyanovich, and Gautam Das. 2019. Designing fair ranking schemes. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 1259--1276.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Abolfazl Asudeh and H. V. Jagadish. 2020. Fairly Evaluating and Scoring Items in a Data Set. Proc. VLDB Endow., Vol. 13, 12 (2020), 3445--3448. https://doi.org/10.14778/3415478.3415566Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2018. Bias on the web. Commun. ACM, Vol. 61, 6 (2018), 54--61. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209581Google ScholarDigital Library
- Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Fairness in machine learning. Nips tutorial, Vol. 1 (2017), 2.Google Scholar
- Alex Beutel, Jilin Chen, Tulsee Doshi, Hai Qian, Li Wei, Yi Wu, Lukasz Heldt, Zhe Zhao, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi, and Cristos Goodrow. 2019. Fairness in Recommendation Ranking Through Pairwise Comparisons. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Anchorage, AK, USA) (KDD '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2212--2220. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330745Google ScholarDigital Library
- Asia J Biega, Krishna P Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 405--414.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher JC Burges. 2010. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. Learning, Vol. 11, 23--581 (2010), 81.Google Scholar
- Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 129--136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlos Castillo. 2019. Fairness and transparency in ranking. In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 52. ACM New York, NY, USA, 64--71.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L Elisa Celis, Anay Mehrotra, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. 2020. Interventions for ranking in the presence of implicit bias. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 369--380.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L Elisa Celis, Damian Straszak, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. 2018. Ranking with Fairness Constraints. In 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2018). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
- Alexandra Chouldechova and Aaron Roth. 2020. A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning. Commun. ACM, Vol. 63, 5 (2020), 82--89. https://doi.org/10.1145/3376898Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patricia Hill Collins. 2002. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. routledge.Google Scholar
- Kimberle Crenshaw. 1990. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stan. L. Rev., Vol. 43 (1990), 1241.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2020. Data feminism. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Ronald Dworkin. 1981. What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 10, 3 (1981), 185--246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2264894Google Scholar
- Michael D. Ekstrand, Robin Burke, and Fernando Diaz. 2019. Fairness and discrimination in recommendation and retrieval. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 16--20, 2019, Toine Bogers, Alan Said, Peter Brusilovsky, and Domonkos Tikk (Eds.). ACM, 576--577. https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3346964Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph Fishkin. 2014. Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity. Oup Usa.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sorelle A Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2016. On the (im) possibility of fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07236 (2016).Google Scholar
- Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., Vol. 14, 3 (1996), 330--347. https://doi.org/10.1145/230538.230561Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Garc'i a-Soriano and Francesco Bonchi. 2021. Maxmin-Fair Ranking: Individual Fairness under Group-Fairness Constraints. In KDD '21: The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14--18, 2021, Feida Zhu, Beng Chin Ooi, and Chunyan Miao (Eds.). ACM, 436--446. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447548.3467349Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sahin Cem Geyik, Stuart Ambler, and Krishnaram Kenthapadi. 2019. Fairness-aware ranking in search & recommendation systems with application to linkedin talent search. In Proceedings of the 25th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2221--2231.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sara Hajian, Francesco Bonchi, and Carlos Castillo. 2016. Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2125--2126.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3315--3323.Google Scholar
- Kalervo J"arvelin and Jaana Kek"al"ainen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 20, 4 (2002), 422--446.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, and Geri Gay. 2017. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 51. Acm New York, NY, USA, 4--11.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Falaah Arif Khan, Eleni Manis, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2022. Towards Substantive Conceptions of Algorithmic Fairness: Normative Guidance from Equal Opportunity Doctrines. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO 2022, Arlington, VA, USA, October 6--9, 2022. ACM, 18:1--18:10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3551624.3555303Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan. 2018. Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias. In 9th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2018) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 94), Anna R. Karlin (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 33:1--33:17. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2018.33Google Scholar
- Preethi Lahoti, Krishna P Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2019. ifair: Learning individually fair data representations for algorithmic decision making. In 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1334--1345.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Timo Makkonen. 2002. Multiple, compound and intersectional discrimination: Bringing the experiences of the most marginalized to the fore. Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University (2002).Google Scholar
- Christopher D Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Evaluation in information retrieval. Introduction to information retrieval, Vol. 1 (2008), 188--210.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 54, 6 (2021), 115:1--115:35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607Google ScholarDigital Library
- Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. nyu Press.Google Scholar
- Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Thorsten Joachims, Lori Lorigo, Geri Gay, and Laura Granka. 2007. In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of computer-mediated communication, Vol. 12, 3 (2007), 801--823.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. 2020. Algorithmic Fairness. CoRR, Vol. abs/2001.09784 (2020). showeprint[arXiv]2001.09784 https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09784Google Scholar
- Evaggelia Pitoura, Kostas Stefanidis, and Georgia Koutrika. 2021. Fairness in Rankings and Recommenders: Models, Methods and Research Directions. In 37th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2021, Chania, Greece, April 19--22, 2021. IEEE, 2358--2361. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE51399.2021.00265Google Scholar
- John Rawls. 1971. A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Richard V. Reeves and Dimitrios Halikias. 2017. Race gaps in SAT scores highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility. (2017). https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobilityGoogle Scholar
- John E. Roemer. 2002. Equality of opportunity: a progress report. Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 19, 2 (2002), 405--471.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephanie A Shields. 2008. Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex roles, Vol. 59, 5--6 (2008), 301--311.Google Scholar
- Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of exposure in rankings. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, 2219--2228.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2019. Policy Learning for Fairness in Ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04056 (2019).Google Scholar
- Julia Stoyanovich, Ke Yang, and H. V. Jagadish. 2018. Online Set Selection with Fairness and Diversity Constraints. In Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, EDBT 2018, Vienna, Austria, March 26--29, 2018. 241--252. https://doi.org/10.5441/002/edbt.2018.22Google Scholar
- Ke Yang, Vasilis Gkatzelis, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2019. Balanced Ranking with Diversity Constraints. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2019, Macao, China, August 10--16, 2019. 6035--6042. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/836Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ke Yang, Joshua R. Loftus, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2021. Causal intersectionality and fair ranking. In Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2021.7Google Scholar
- Ke Yang and Julia Stoyanovich. 2017. Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management. ACM, 22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2017a. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1569--1578.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meike Zehlike and Carlos Castillo. 2018. Reducing disparate exposure in ranking: A learning to rank approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.08716 (2018).Google Scholar
- Meike Zehlike, Philipp Hacker, and Emil Wiedemann. 2017b. Matching code and law: achieving algorithmic fairness with optimal transport. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2017), 1--38.Google Scholar
- Meike Zehlike, Tom Sühr, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, and Sara Hajian. 2022a. Fair Top-k Ranking with multiple protected groups. Information Processing & Management, Vol. 59, 1 (2022), 102707.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meike Zehlike, Ke Yang, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2022b. Fairness in Ranking, Part I: Score-Based Ranking. ACM Comput. Surv. (apr 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3533379Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meike Zehlike, Ke Yang, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2022c. Fairness in Ranking, Part II: Learning-to-Rank and Recommender Systems. ACM Comput. Surv. (apr 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3533380Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Fairness in Ranking: From Values to Technical Choices and Back
Recommendations
Fairness in Ranking, Part I: Score-Based Ranking
In the past few years, there has been much work on incorporating fairness requirements into algorithmic rankers, with contributions coming from the data management, algorithms, information retrieval, and recommender systems communities. In this survey, we ...
Fairness in Ranking, Part II: Learning-to-Rank and Recommender Systems
In the past few years, there has been much work on incorporating fairness requirements into algorithmic rankers, with contributions coming from the data management, algorithms, information retrieval, and recommender systems communities. In this survey, we ...
Re-ranking search results using query logs
CIKM '06: Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge managementThis work addresses two common problems in search, frequently occurring with underspecified user queries: the top-ranked results for such queries may not contain documents relevant to the user's search intent, and fresh and relevant pages may not get ...
Comments