# A Ranking Approach to Fair Classification

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.04565 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.04565/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Feb 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Counterfactual Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.06856/) (2017)
- [Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.08230/) (2017)
- [Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08452/) (2016)
- [Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.02744/) (2017)
- [Fairness of Exposure in Rankings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07281/) (2018)
- [Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01788/) (2018)
- [FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06368/) (2017)
- [Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08559/) (2016)
- [Ranking with Fairness Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.06840/) (2017)
- [What's Sex Got To Do With Fair Machine Learning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.01770/) (2020)
- [FairSearch: A Tool For Fairness in Ranked Search Results](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.13134/) (2019)
- [Deontological Ethics By Monotonicity Shape Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.11990/) (2020)
- [A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.00148/) (2015)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- ["There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05758/) (2022)
- [Appropriate Fairness Perceptions? On the Effectiveness of Explanations in Enabling People to Assess the Fairness of Automated Decision Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.06500/) (2021)
- [Perspectives on Incorporating Expert Feedback into Model Updates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.06905/) (2022)
- [A Human-Centric Perspective on Fairness and Transparency in Algorithmic Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.00033/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Algorithmic decision systems are increasingly used in areas such as hiring, school admission, or loan approval. Typically, these systems rely on labeled data for training a classification model. However, in many scenarios, ground-truth labels are unavailable, and instead we have only access to imperfect labels as the result of (potentially biased) human-made decisions. Despite being imperfect, historical decisions often contain some useful information on the unobserved true labels. In this paper, we focus on scenarios where only imperfect labels are available and propose a new fair ranking-based decision system based on monotonic relationships between legitimate features and the outcome. Our approach is both intuitive and easy to implement, and thus particularly suitable for adoption in real-world settings. More in detail, we introduce a distance-based decision criterion, which incorporates useful information from historical decisions and accounts for unwanted correlation between protected and legitimate features. Through extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world data, we show that our method is fair in the sense that a) it assigns the desirable outcome to the most qualified individuals, and b) it removes the effect of stereotypes in decision-making, thereby outperforming traditional classification algorithms. Additionally, we are able to show theoretically that our method is consistent with a prominent concept of individual fairness which states that "similar individuals should be treated similarly."