mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

RAGUEL: Recourse-Aware Group Unfairness Elimination

arXiv 2208.14175 ↗First posted 30 Aug 2022cs.LG cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While machine learning and ranking-based systems are in widespread use for sensitive decision-making processes (e.g., determining job candidates, assigning credit scores), they are rife with concerns over unintended biases in their outcomes, which makes algorithmic fairness (e.g., demographic parity, equal opportunity) an objective of interest. 'Algorithmic recourse' offers feasible recovery actions to change unwanted outcomes through the modification of attributes. We introduce the notion of ranked group-level recourse fairness, and develop a 'recourse-aware ranking' solution that satisfies ranked recourse fairness constraints while minimizing the cost of suggested modifications. Our solution suggests interventions that can reorder the ranked list of database records and mitigate group-level unfairness; specifically, disproportionate representation of sub-groups and recourse cost imbalance. This re-ranking identifies the minimum modifications to data points, with these attribute modifications weighted according to their ease of recourse. We then present an efficient block-based extension that enables re-ranking at any granularity (e.g., multiple brackets of bank loan interest rates, multiple pages of search engine results). Evaluation on real datasets shows that, while existing methods may even exacerbate recourse unfairness, our solution -- RAGUEL -- significantly improves recourse-aware fairness. RAGUEL outperforms alternatives at improving recourse fairness, through a combined process of counterfactual generation and re-ranking, whilst remaining efficient for large-scale datasets.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2022.

Builds on

26 of 52 references.

References · 26

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  4. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
  5. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  6. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  7. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  8. 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 328
  9. 2019Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisionscited by 204
  10. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  11. 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 190
  12. 2020Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approachcited by 140
14 more
  1. 2018Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankingscited by 124
  2. 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
  3. 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
  4. 2020On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 70
  5. 2021Fairness in Rankings and Recommendations: An Overviewcited by 62
  6. 2019Equalizing Recourse across Groupscited by 55
  7. 2019Repairing without Retraining: Avoiding Disparate Impact with Counterfactual Distributionscited by 48
  8. 2019Measurable Counterfactual Local Explanations for Any Classifiercited by 48
  9. 2016Generalized Inverse Classificationcited by 22
  10. 2021OmniFair: A Declarative System for Model-Agnostic Group Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 18
  11. 2019Fairness through Equality of Effortcited by 15
  12. 2020LimeOut: An Ensemble Approach To Improve Process Fairnesscited by 11
  13. 2018Robust Classification of Financial Riskcited by 8
  14. 2018Fair Task Allocation in Crowdsourced Deliverycited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.

1 paper.